I've rediscovered the fact that I can spend most of a day sewing beads onto fabric and not get bored. It's very soothing and meditative. This is despite the fact that it seems to take forever to cover even an inch of the base fabric...I'm working with Delicas, which are tiny. But the necklace is coming out well, so far -- red and gold, very sparkly! It's a gift for a friend, which makes it even more fun to work on. Plus, I get to watch (or listen to) interesting DVDs while I sew, which is harder when I'm sewing on the machine. And if Q is there, we can snuggle while I bead (as long as I don't accidentally stick him with the needle or sew him into the project!).
I wish I could be beading, instead of writing a worksheet and battling a sinus infection.
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Monday, February 6, 2006
Interesting links
Safer sex fashions for the prom
Video game meets sex education. I'm particularly impressed that this focuses on orgasm and pleasure, rather than reproduction and STDs.
Video game meets sex education. I'm particularly impressed that this focuses on orgasm and pleasure, rather than reproduction and STDs.
Sunday, February 5, 2006
Immersed in pornographic history
I watched the documentary Inside Deep Throat this week, which describes the history of the film Deep Throat, and it was fascinating, on a number of levels. First of all, I've also been reading a book called Grindhouse, which details the history of "adult-only" film in the U.S., and seeing Inside Deep Throat in that context was illuminating, both in terms of its similarities and differences with previous adult-only films. The documentary did an excellent job of framing the film in its cultural context and had very good interview and footage material from the major players in the film's history and relevant academic commentary. Plus, it had extensive, interesting bonus material. The directors clearly got really immersed in the topic and couldn't fit all the great material into the film. I highly recommend the documentary for those interested in the topic. Note: it is rated NC-17, since it includes sexually explicit scenes from the original film.
Some interesting facts:
Interesting stuff. Makes me curious to see the original film!
I was also really struck by pornography's complex messages regarding women's sexuality. At one level, modern pornography holds a liberatory message for women, in that it embraces the notion that women want sex and that it ok for women to enjoy sex (even outside of marriage) and to seek sexual satisfaction. This overturns the Victorian notion of the asexual woman and the double standard which brands any woman who engages in sex with multiple partners or strangers a "slut." At another level, pornography continues to frame women's sexuality in terms of male definitions and fantasies -- in Deep Throat for example, the device of her having a clitoris in her throat creates a context in which fellatio is just as satisfying to her as it is for her male partner, playing into the fantasy that male satisfaction and female satisfaction derive from the same sources. Pornography promotes a number of harmful myths about sexuality; anyone who learns about sex through pornography will have a skewed and inaccurate understanding of female (and male!) sexuality. So at one level, I can see the positive power of demystifying sex through pornography, as well as the usefulness of erotica and pornography for personal sexual exploration and arousal -- it can serve a number of useful purposes. On the other hand, it continues to promote unrealistic and harmful ideas about sexuality, and in a cultural context which provides inconsistent and incomplete sex education, I worry about the role of pornography in people's beliefs and understandings of real sexuality.
What do you think: Pornography good or bad?
Some interesting facts:
- The Miller test for obscenity (as handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and still the legal standard today) states that, in order for some material to be obscene, it must (among other things) be without any socially redeeming value. In one of the obscenity cases against Deep Throat, the defense case included a pitch for the film's having value in part through its message that women are entitled to sexual satisfaction, in that the female lead is questing for an orgasmic experience of her own. The prosecution rejoinder was that the film's emphasis on clitoral stimulation for the woman to reach orgasm emphasized the wrong kind of orgasm for women -- that the film encouraged women to believe that it was ok to have an orgasm through clitoral stimulation, and that belief was incorrect, in that women should strive for the vaginal orgasm (as was originally promulgated by Sigmund Freud). This debate was occurring in front of a judge who didn't know what the clitoris was and had to be educated on basic female anatomy. This was in the 1970s. (Dr. Ruth's comment to that in the documentary was that the judge and prosecution should have been in her classes, where she would have taught them the importance of the clitoris in women's orgasm.)
- The obscenity case against Deep Throat produced the first federal prosecution of an actor (the male actor in the film) on obscenity charges; although he was found guilty, the charge was later overturned on appeal.
- Deep Throat was produced and distributed through one of the prominent NY organized crime families.
- Deep Throat was not the first sexually explicit film to be produced or shown in the U.S., nor was it the first to be shown in mainstream theaters -- although the inclusion of X-rated films in mainstream theaters was very new in the U.S. But it was probably the first in the mainstream theaters to be primarily about sex (as opposed to I Am Curious (Yellow), which was really a political polemic which included explicit sexuality), as well as being unapologetic/nonmoralistic in its depiction of erotic and explicit sex, and attempting to be funny. It was probably a combination of factors (including a positive article about "porno chic" in the NYT) which thrust it into the national spotlight (pardon the pun). It was one of the few sexually explicit films which drew a mainstream audience, not just the raincoat brigade. This was additionally fueled by the government's effort to ban it (thanks to Nixon's War on Smut) -- there have been several adult-only films which gained increasing success once there was an effort to censor them. (I'm not sure what that says about human nature.)
- Although the film grossed huge sums of money and cost very little to produce, very few of those involved made any significant amount of money (apart from the producers).
- The federal prosecutor for the obscenity case, when interviewed in the film, essentially stated that he thought more obscenity cases should be brought in today's society, and that if we could just get rid of the terrorist distraction, he and his staff would be on the forefront of the war on obscenity.
Interesting stuff. Makes me curious to see the original film!
I was also really struck by pornography's complex messages regarding women's sexuality. At one level, modern pornography holds a liberatory message for women, in that it embraces the notion that women want sex and that it ok for women to enjoy sex (even outside of marriage) and to seek sexual satisfaction. This overturns the Victorian notion of the asexual woman and the double standard which brands any woman who engages in sex with multiple partners or strangers a "slut." At another level, pornography continues to frame women's sexuality in terms of male definitions and fantasies -- in Deep Throat for example, the device of her having a clitoris in her throat creates a context in which fellatio is just as satisfying to her as it is for her male partner, playing into the fantasy that male satisfaction and female satisfaction derive from the same sources. Pornography promotes a number of harmful myths about sexuality; anyone who learns about sex through pornography will have a skewed and inaccurate understanding of female (and male!) sexuality. So at one level, I can see the positive power of demystifying sex through pornography, as well as the usefulness of erotica and pornography for personal sexual exploration and arousal -- it can serve a number of useful purposes. On the other hand, it continues to promote unrealistic and harmful ideas about sexuality, and in a cultural context which provides inconsistent and incomplete sex education, I worry about the role of pornography in people's beliefs and understandings of real sexuality.
What do you think: Pornography good or bad?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Contagious meme
Rule of four, borrowed from kiaroskuro, who borrowed it from markbalahadia
Four jobs you have had in your life
Four movies you could watch over and over
Four places you've lived
Four TV shows you love to watch
Four places you've been on vacation
Four of your favorite foods
Four places you'd rather be right now
Four sites you visit daily
Google
Livejournal
The Washington Post
Montgomery College
Four jobs you have had in your life
- Waitress
- Telemarketer but it was only for a month, I swear!
- College professor
- Belly dancer
Four movies you could watch over and over
- The Princess Bride
- Blazing Saddles
- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the original, with Gene Wilder)
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Four places you've lived
- Chicago, IL USA
- Fern Park, FL USA
- Highland Park, NJ USA
- Philadelphia, PA USA
Four TV shows you love to watch
- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and Angel
- The X-Files
- Star Trek (in most/all of its incarnations)
- Various Britcoms (Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Vicar of Dibley, etc.)
Four places you've been on vacation
- Paris, France
- San Francisco, CA USA
- Toronto, Canada
- Myst & Riven[TM]
Four of your favorite foods
- CAKE! White cake with white frosting. But good white frosting...buttery, not too fluffy, but not overly sweet, and preferably with some roses or other frosting-based decorations on it. But not too much frosting, either. Just the right amount. They make it perfectly at Prantl's in Pittsburgh, PA, if you're ever there. CAKE! Oooh, and can I have some ice cream in a little dish on the side, to eat right after the cake, or maybe interspersed with bites of cake? And then another helping of both later on?
- Buttered toast. Not too dark, but definitely toasted, and with margarine or whipped butter (regular butter is too cold and tears the bread). And then another slice, just like it.
- Diet Coke. Does that count as a food? It has no nutritional value...
- Pesto or pizza made by Q, or pretty much any meal I get to share with him.
Four places you'd rather be right now
- In bed, sleeping, with no need for an alarm clock in the morning
- Snuggling with Q
- In my textile studio or my dance studio
- Someplace where my obligations don't exist, and there are extra hours in the day just for me...although maybe I'll share them with friends.
Four sites you visit daily
Livejournal
The Washington Post
Montgomery College
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Sexuality in the priesthood
In November 2005, the Vatican released a document stating that men who have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" are not to be allowed to enter the seminary. (Those with transitory urges can enter the seminary, provided that they have been "overcome" for at least three years.)
Holding aside the fact that I don't agree with the moral censure of same-sex sexual and romantic relationships, I still wonder:
Given that all priests take a vow of celibacy, why does it matter what "tendencies" they have? Clearly, priests are not supposed to be sexually active, whether hetero- or homo-, but that applies equally to those with deeply rooted heterosexual tendencies. Why deter those who have same-sex sexual desires, as long as they can resist expressing them -- why not have the same behavioral standards for everyone and not worry about their sexual orientation?
Ok, let's say that the answer to that question is that homosexual desires are immoral, but heterosexual desires are not, and those with immoral desires can't or shouldn't be priests.
Then we need a similar stricture against all those who have deeply rooted desires which are considered immoral by the Catholic church -- lying, cheating, desire to use contraception, you name it. Heck, they need a screen for those who have deeply rooted masturbatory tendencies, since those are considered immoral, too!
I know the document specifically states that the church "deeply respects" the homosexual persons in question (while at the same time specifically excluding them from the seminary). But I can't see respect here. I only see prejudice and discrimination. And I am deeply disturbed by it.
Holding aside the fact that I don't agree with the moral censure of same-sex sexual and romantic relationships, I still wonder:
Given that all priests take a vow of celibacy, why does it matter what "tendencies" they have? Clearly, priests are not supposed to be sexually active, whether hetero- or homo-, but that applies equally to those with deeply rooted heterosexual tendencies. Why deter those who have same-sex sexual desires, as long as they can resist expressing them -- why not have the same behavioral standards for everyone and not worry about their sexual orientation?
Ok, let's say that the answer to that question is that homosexual desires are immoral, but heterosexual desires are not, and those with immoral desires can't or shouldn't be priests.
Then we need a similar stricture against all those who have deeply rooted desires which are considered immoral by the Catholic church -- lying, cheating, desire to use contraception, you name it. Heck, they need a screen for those who have deeply rooted masturbatory tendencies, since those are considered immoral, too!
I know the document specifically states that the church "deeply respects" the homosexual persons in question (while at the same time specifically excluding them from the seminary). But I can't see respect here. I only see prejudice and discrimination. And I am deeply disturbed by it.
What would you do if you were brave?
Listening to music I haven't heard in a while, a song by the Four Bitchin' Babes which has a refrain of, "What would I do today if I were brave?"
This assumes, I guess, that you aren't already brave (big assumption) and that fear is a substantial barrier to one or more of your actions. I actually think that my biggest barrier is time, not fear, but fear is relevant, too.
Where fear is a barrier...
If I were brave(r), I'd make more art. I'm afraid of making the "wrong" choices and wasting my (sometimes irreplaceable) supplies.
I'd probably publish more -- getting those negative peer reviews and rejection notices really makes it hard for me to persist in submitting the work.
I would be faster at completing a variety of tasks if the anxiety were removed; I do find that worries about doing something "wrong" makes it harder to finish tasks in a timely way.
Where fear doesn't deter me...
I'm not generally afraid of speaking out and expressing my opinion, unless I don't think I have enough knowledge to formulate an informed stance. I've never had a significant fear of public speaking (which is good, since I do it all day for my job!).
Although I'm usually nervous before performing, I don't let that stop me from singing, acting, or dancing in public performances.
I've never been deterred from asking someone out by fear of rejection (at least that I can remember). Right, Q? :)
Well, what would you do if you today were brave?
If I Were Brave
Jane Stanfield, Jimmy Scott
What would I do if I knew
that I could not fail?
If I believed would the wind
always fill up my sail?
How far would I go, what could I achieve
Trusting the hero in me?
If I were brave I'd walk the razor's edge
Where fools and dreamers dare to tread
And never lose faith
even when losing my way
What step would I take today if I were brave?
...
If I refused to listen to the voice of fear
Would the voice of courage whisper in my ear?
What would I do today if I were brave?
This assumes, I guess, that you aren't already brave (big assumption) and that fear is a substantial barrier to one or more of your actions. I actually think that my biggest barrier is time, not fear, but fear is relevant, too.
Where fear is a barrier...
If I were brave(r), I'd make more art. I'm afraid of making the "wrong" choices and wasting my (sometimes irreplaceable) supplies.
I'd probably publish more -- getting those negative peer reviews and rejection notices really makes it hard for me to persist in submitting the work.
I would be faster at completing a variety of tasks if the anxiety were removed; I do find that worries about doing something "wrong" makes it harder to finish tasks in a timely way.
Where fear doesn't deter me...
I'm not generally afraid of speaking out and expressing my opinion, unless I don't think I have enough knowledge to formulate an informed stance. I've never had a significant fear of public speaking (which is good, since I do it all day for my job!).
Although I'm usually nervous before performing, I don't let that stop me from singing, acting, or dancing in public performances.
I've never been deterred from asking someone out by fear of rejection (at least that I can remember). Right, Q? :)
Well, what would you do if you today were brave?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Inclusion or exclusion in this holiday season
A number of Christians have been expressing offense (or even outrage) at the use of "Happy Holidays"; instead they want people to say "Merry Christmas." There was discontent at the First Couple's holiday card, which did not specifically mention Christmas. Some have stated that they will refuse to shop at any store that has no specific mention of Christmas.
For those who are used to being in the cultural mainstream and having most of the surrounding cultural discourse support their cultural practice, it can be disconcerting to become de-centered. To suddenly become merely one religious/cultural tradition among many, with no special status, seems to connote disrespect.
But only if you are used to being in the cultural mainstream. For those who are accustomed to lack of cultural recognition, the intensity of the outrage seems odd.
No one is claiming that there isn't a Christmas tradition for some people -- merely that it is part of a broader winter holiday season that includes New Year's, Hanukah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, Ramadan, etc... But that lack of privilege, the lack of exclusive recognition, the inability to ignore other traditions -- that is what is most likely the galling aspect.
It strikes at the heart of the key difference in viewpoints: Do we acknowledge and respect diverse practices and cultures, or do we ignore cultural diversity and recognize only the dominant majority?
For those in the dominant majority, there is always the option of ignoring the minority traditions. Those in the minority, however, have no choice but to confront the dominant traditions in everyday life (e.g., Christmas specials on TV, etc.) and to be reminded of their marginalized status. Those in the majority may not even notice these references to their cultural traditions -- they are just "normal" -- but they may become deeply upset at the hint of removing any of these references. We don't notice the culture when it coincides with our worldview, but we notice any perceived "loss" of these cultural supports.
I believe in acknowledging and supporting diversity. I believe it is worth sharing the stage, instead of hogging the spotlight. I recognize that people find meaning in a variety of cultural and religious practices, and I am willing to support their path as long as it doesn't harm others or exclude others' paths. I'm not offended when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas", or "Happy Kwanzaa", but I am sensitive to the experience of being unrecognized and marginalized. And so my reply will typically be "Happy Holidays," with that meaning that you should find joy in the holidays you celebrate. And if you take offense at that, I think you have missed the point.
For those who are used to being in the cultural mainstream and having most of the surrounding cultural discourse support their cultural practice, it can be disconcerting to become de-centered. To suddenly become merely one religious/cultural tradition among many, with no special status, seems to connote disrespect.
But only if you are used to being in the cultural mainstream. For those who are accustomed to lack of cultural recognition, the intensity of the outrage seems odd.
No one is claiming that there isn't a Christmas tradition for some people -- merely that it is part of a broader winter holiday season that includes New Year's, Hanukah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, Ramadan, etc... But that lack of privilege, the lack of exclusive recognition, the inability to ignore other traditions -- that is what is most likely the galling aspect.
It strikes at the heart of the key difference in viewpoints: Do we acknowledge and respect diverse practices and cultures, or do we ignore cultural diversity and recognize only the dominant majority?
For those in the dominant majority, there is always the option of ignoring the minority traditions. Those in the minority, however, have no choice but to confront the dominant traditions in everyday life (e.g., Christmas specials on TV, etc.) and to be reminded of their marginalized status. Those in the majority may not even notice these references to their cultural traditions -- they are just "normal" -- but they may become deeply upset at the hint of removing any of these references. We don't notice the culture when it coincides with our worldview, but we notice any perceived "loss" of these cultural supports.
I believe in acknowledging and supporting diversity. I believe it is worth sharing the stage, instead of hogging the spotlight. I recognize that people find meaning in a variety of cultural and religious practices, and I am willing to support their path as long as it doesn't harm others or exclude others' paths. I'm not offended when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas", or "Happy Kwanzaa", but I am sensitive to the experience of being unrecognized and marginalized. And so my reply will typically be "Happy Holidays," with that meaning that you should find joy in the holidays you celebrate. And if you take offense at that, I think you have missed the point.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Abstinence only sex ed: biased, inaccurate AND sexist
It's old news that abstinence-only sex education is chock-full of scientific and medical inaccuracy. In a report prepared at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (a champion of science) in Dec. 2004, over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula in the study contained "false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health." These programs, which are heavily funded by the federal government, imply that condoms are ineffective at preventing STDs/STIs and pregnancy (in contradiction to actual scientific data), include false information about the sequelae of abortion, and blur religion and science.
I knew about that part of the report.
What I hadn't heard about until reading articles in Salon and Harper's is how incredibly SEXIST these programs are. They are purveyors not only of conservative sexual morals, but also of gender stereotypes. Here is one of the parables that is provided to our youth:
Deep inside every man is a knight in shining armor, ready to rescue a maiden and slay a dragon. When a man feels trusted, he is free to be the strong, protecting man he longs to be.
Imagine a knight traveling through the countryside. He hears a princess in distress and rushes gallantly to slay the dragon. The princess calls out, “I think this noose will work better!” and throws him a rope. As she tells him how to use the noose, the knight obliges her and kills the dragon. Everyone is happy, except the knight, who doesn’t feel like a hero. He is depressed and feels unsure of himself. He would have preferred to use his own sword.
The knight goes on another trip. The princess reminds him to take the noose. The knight hears another maiden in distress. He remembers how he used to feel before he met the princess; with a surge of confidence, he slays the dragon with his sword. All the townspeople rejoice, and the knight is a hero. He never returned to the princess. Instead, he lived happily ever after in the village, and eventually married the maiden—but only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses.
Moral of the story: Occasional assistance may be all right, but too much will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.
What? I don't even think I understand what the point of this is, particularly in a sex ed curriculum. I guess we need to restate that men need to be in charge and to seem more knowledgeable than women. Women, hide your wisdom! Men need to know more, or at least think that they know more, so if you want your knight in shining armor, play dumb.
Oh, yeah, that's a good message to give young people. That furthers gender equality and sexual health. Ladies, don't tell your man how to please you or suggest he wear a condom, because that will lessen his confidence. Hey, what about *her* confidence, huh? It's sure to be bolstered by the reminder that she isn't as bright as he is.
Here's another gem:
While a man needs little or no preparation for sex, a woman often needs hours of emotional and mental preparation.
5 Major Needs of Women: Affection, Conversation, Honesty and Openness, Financial Support, Family Commitment
5 Major Needs of Men: Sexual Fulfillment, Recreational Companionship, Physical Attractiveness, Admiration, Domestic Support
So, women don't need sexual fulfillment and men don't need affection or honesty? I'll remember to lie to my sweetie as I'm admiring his big muscles and draining his wallet dry. That's the ideal relationship for me!
[Sarcasm mode disengaged.]
The really depressing part is that some people believe this *is* the right message to give the next generation, and it's being given out on a massive scale.
I knew about that part of the report.
What I hadn't heard about until reading articles in Salon and Harper's is how incredibly SEXIST these programs are. They are purveyors not only of conservative sexual morals, but also of gender stereotypes. Here is one of the parables that is provided to our youth:
Deep inside every man is a knight in shining armor, ready to rescue a maiden and slay a dragon. When a man feels trusted, he is free to be the strong, protecting man he longs to be.
Imagine a knight traveling through the countryside. He hears a princess in distress and rushes gallantly to slay the dragon. The princess calls out, “I think this noose will work better!” and throws him a rope. As she tells him how to use the noose, the knight obliges her and kills the dragon. Everyone is happy, except the knight, who doesn’t feel like a hero. He is depressed and feels unsure of himself. He would have preferred to use his own sword.
The knight goes on another trip. The princess reminds him to take the noose. The knight hears another maiden in distress. He remembers how he used to feel before he met the princess; with a surge of confidence, he slays the dragon with his sword. All the townspeople rejoice, and the knight is a hero. He never returned to the princess. Instead, he lived happily ever after in the village, and eventually married the maiden—but only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses.
Moral of the story: Occasional assistance may be all right, but too much will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.
What? I don't even think I understand what the point of this is, particularly in a sex ed curriculum. I guess we need to restate that men need to be in charge and to seem more knowledgeable than women. Women, hide your wisdom! Men need to know more, or at least think that they know more, so if you want your knight in shining armor, play dumb.
Oh, yeah, that's a good message to give young people. That furthers gender equality and sexual health. Ladies, don't tell your man how to please you or suggest he wear a condom, because that will lessen his confidence. Hey, what about *her* confidence, huh? It's sure to be bolstered by the reminder that she isn't as bright as he is.
Here's another gem:
While a man needs little or no preparation for sex, a woman often needs hours of emotional and mental preparation.
5 Major Needs of Women: Affection, Conversation, Honesty and Openness, Financial Support, Family Commitment
5 Major Needs of Men: Sexual Fulfillment, Recreational Companionship, Physical Attractiveness, Admiration, Domestic Support
So, women don't need sexual fulfillment and men don't need affection or honesty? I'll remember to lie to my sweetie as I'm admiring his big muscles and draining his wallet dry. That's the ideal relationship for me!
[Sarcasm mode disengaged.]
The really depressing part is that some people believe this *is* the right message to give the next generation, and it's being given out on a massive scale.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Cancer prevents premarital sex?
Paraphrased from today's Washington Post:
A new vaccine will be available next year or soon thereafter which will provide virtually 100% protection against two of the strains of HPV (genital warts; human papilloma virus) that are linked to an increased risk of cervical cancer in women.
Health advocates say: Good news! We can protect women from a cancer which now takes the lives of 3,700 women each year in the US.
Social conservatives say: But wait...if girls and women are protected from the risks of cervical cancer associated with contracting HPV, then they will feel free to engage in risky sexual behaviors, like having more than one lifetime sexual partner. How will we motivate them to be abstinent until marriage, and faithful during marriage?
(I guess that the conservatives forgot about HIV/AIDS, herpes, and a host of other STDs/STIs...)
These two groups are debating whether to make the immunizations mandatory (health advocates) or optional (conservatives) for children/young adults.
Social conservatives are so committed to eradicating sex outside of marriage that they are willing to risk people's lives for their moral vision. It's almost as though they welcome the costs of sexual activity as an impetus for sexual morality. If we can just keep people terrified of the consequences of sex outside of marriage, then they will be abstinent. Maybe if we could convince them that sex without the wedding band causes you to die instantaneously -- you stick it in, and just explode (*boom*) -- then they'd be sure to be abstinent!
Except it doesn't work. Fear is a strong motivator, to be sure, but it is not the only relevant motivation -- pleasure and affection and desire for intimacy are strong motivators as well. And adolescents are often convinced that they will not be affected by risks (termed the personal fable) -- it's hard to get them to wear seat belts, and that isn't even much of an impediment to enjoyment! How many young women think to themselves...Hey, I'd like to have sex, but I might get cervical cancer as the result of an STD. Gosh, it's not worth it...I'll wait until marriage. Many people don't think that their partners could be infected with an STD/STI, and I suspect that a great many young people don't even know that HPV can increase a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer. (Particularly since many sex-ed programs have been eviscerated to a bare-bones "don't do it" message.)
Further, one cannot control whether one's partner is faithful or not -- the abstinent-until-marriage and faithful-during-marriage woman may still get infected with HPV from her husband...is she supposed to die as a penance for his lack of sexual fidelity? And this doesn't even consider issues of forced sex. In short, apart from the obvious question of whether having sex with more than one partner in one's entire life is, in fact, the correct moral stance, the fear-based approach is unlikely to succeed in enforcing this stance.
Let's hope that the health advocates win this one -- I'd hate to see more women die from a preventable disease just to assuage the fears of the conservatives that young people might have sex before marriage.
A new vaccine will be available next year or soon thereafter which will provide virtually 100% protection against two of the strains of HPV (genital warts; human papilloma virus) that are linked to an increased risk of cervical cancer in women.
Health advocates say: Good news! We can protect women from a cancer which now takes the lives of 3,700 women each year in the US.
Social conservatives say: But wait...if girls and women are protected from the risks of cervical cancer associated with contracting HPV, then they will feel free to engage in risky sexual behaviors, like having more than one lifetime sexual partner. How will we motivate them to be abstinent until marriage, and faithful during marriage?
(I guess that the conservatives forgot about HIV/AIDS, herpes, and a host of other STDs/STIs...)
These two groups are debating whether to make the immunizations mandatory (health advocates) or optional (conservatives) for children/young adults.
Social conservatives are so committed to eradicating sex outside of marriage that they are willing to risk people's lives for their moral vision. It's almost as though they welcome the costs of sexual activity as an impetus for sexual morality. If we can just keep people terrified of the consequences of sex outside of marriage, then they will be abstinent. Maybe if we could convince them that sex without the wedding band causes you to die instantaneously -- you stick it in, and just explode (*boom*) -- then they'd be sure to be abstinent!
Except it doesn't work. Fear is a strong motivator, to be sure, but it is not the only relevant motivation -- pleasure and affection and desire for intimacy are strong motivators as well. And adolescents are often convinced that they will not be affected by risks (termed the personal fable) -- it's hard to get them to wear seat belts, and that isn't even much of an impediment to enjoyment! How many young women think to themselves...Hey, I'd like to have sex, but I might get cervical cancer as the result of an STD. Gosh, it's not worth it...I'll wait until marriage. Many people don't think that their partners could be infected with an STD/STI, and I suspect that a great many young people don't even know that HPV can increase a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer. (Particularly since many sex-ed programs have been eviscerated to a bare-bones "don't do it" message.)
Further, one cannot control whether one's partner is faithful or not -- the abstinent-until-marriage and faithful-during-marriage woman may still get infected with HPV from her husband...is she supposed to die as a penance for his lack of sexual fidelity? And this doesn't even consider issues of forced sex. In short, apart from the obvious question of whether having sex with more than one partner in one's entire life is, in fact, the correct moral stance, the fear-based approach is unlikely to succeed in enforcing this stance.
Let's hope that the health advocates win this one -- I'd hate to see more women die from a preventable disease just to assuage the fears of the conservatives that young people might have sex before marriage.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Marriage: (E)Quality matters
From the Washington Post today...
First of all, the entire premise is flawed: I'm always annoyed by the social science which purports to find that marriage improves the quality of life, whether that is health, mental health, child development, etc. What these studies actually find is that people who are married have higher (or lower or the same) average health, mental health, etc. This is at best a correlation between marriage and health (well-being, etc.) (and even that is not consistently found, as noted above). But now the important part (and this is Psychology 101, people): CORRELATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION. Just because two variables are associated does NOT mean that one of them causes the other. If every time a phone rings in the U.S., there is a baby born in India, does that prove that one causes the other? Not in the least. In this case, it may well be that those who get married are already more likely to be socially skilled, more mentally healthy, etc. than those who do not get married, and that the marriage itself plays no part in improving these qualities. So we can never assume that marriage has any causal impact until we do studies in which people are randomly assigned to get married or not...and I don't think I can get the human subjects board to agree to that one.
(Side note: Even if marriage does have some positive causal effect on people's lives, what would it be about marriage that would have the effect? Is it the legal recognition? Access to partner's health insurance? Social recognition? Different treatment from friends and family? Cohabitation? Commitment? Long-term partnering? Great gifts from the wedding? Without a clear model of what aspect of marriage has the beneficial effect, I'm loath to create marriage incentives, as we are working blind.)
Second of all, note the over-generalization: Even if there is some effect of marriage, it is unlikely to be the same for all people -- no relationship or social context will be universally beneficial to all people. Marriage, like any relationship, is enormously variable, and its effects will undoubtedly vary considerably, as the reporter notes. It's good relationships that have the potential to positively benefit people's lives: An unhappy, abusive, conflictual relationship will be more likely to decrease well-being than increase it.
Third of all, note the gendering: Marriage has generally been found to be much more consistently associated with good health and well-being for men than for women, and yet the social scientists promoting marriage continue to advocate incentives for marriage, as though this will improve everyone's lives. But, as the reporter notes, the report indicates that marriage will improve black men's lives -- to solve the crisis of black males, to reduce the juvenile delinquency among black males. Why is it women's job to improve men's lives? Isn't this just a variant on the Victorian trope that women's purity and moral goodness would save men from their bestial natures? Patriarchy raises its ugly head again.
And now the kicker...why does marriage benefit men more than women? Because of persistent inequalities in labor: Women do more household labor and more emotional/relationship labor than men on average in cross-sex couples. Because of continuing risks of domestic violence: Women are more likely to suffer significant physical injury (and risk of death) from domestic violence than are men. What does it all boil down to? Power. Men still hold more power than women on average, and as long as that imbalance persists, men will benefit more from couplehood than will women. The solution? Egalitarian relationships, which are consistently found to be more satisfying for both men and women. As the reporter notes, women (and men) need "non-conflictual, nonviolent, and fair" relationships.
The big question: How do we achieve this in a society still infused with traditions of patriarchy? When men still earn more than women (women earn $0.77 for each $1 a man earns on average), when positions of power are still dominated by men (seen a woman U.S. president yet?), when models of marriage still promote male dominance (albeit more subtly than in the past)...how do we create a movement of truly egalitarian relationships?
I know it is possible...I have it in my own life. It's fabulous. I want it for everyone.
Poor Marriages, Poor Health
By William Raspberry
Monday, October 24, 2005; A19
Black women are sick of marriage.
Well, lots of them, anyway.
I've just looked at "The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans," a comprehensive review of the most recent literature (since about 1990) on the subject, and the conclusions are generally what you'd expect:
Marriage promotes the economic, social, familial and psychological well-being of black men and women -- as it does for men and women generally. Marriage is wonderful for children, who turn out to be less trouble-prone than their peers from single-parent-households.
The economic benefits of marriage are more pronounced for black couples than for whites, more often keeping their families from slipping below the poverty line.
But when it comes to physical health, marriage is worse than neutral for black women. Listen to the report, newly published by the New York-based Institute for American Values:
"Our research finds that marriage brings small health benefits to black men -- and none to black women. In fact, married black women are significantly less likely to report having excellent health than are unmarried black women."
. . .
"Overall, the study shows the smallest benefit to black women -- but it's still an important benefit," said Malone-Colon, a psychologist who is director of the Washington-based National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, a clearinghouse for resources for strengthening marriages.
But a negative consequence for the health of black women?
"I know. There are some dynamics we haven't given a lot of attention to, though one could hypothesize. It probably has to do with the quality of marriage -- self-reported levels of satisfaction with the marriage.
"In a number of surveys, African Americans report that they are less satisfied. They also report higher levels of conflict -- even violence. Then there's the matter of domestic justice -- sharing household responsibilities. And infidelity rates are higher among African American men."
. . .
As the report itself notes: "There is every reason to believe that increased marriage rates, and especially higher numbers of good marriages, would bring significant improvements to black people's lives. To take one example, we have seen in this review that higher marriage rates among African Americans would almost certainly reduce the risks of juvenile delinquency facing young African American males."
Moreover, the scholars conclude, strengthening marriage in black America might be as effective as "any other strategy" in addressing the crisis of black males.
But the implied caveat is that they'd better be good marriages -- non-conflictual, nonviolent and fair.
Black women have seen the other kind of marriage and they are, quite literally, sick of it.
First of all, the entire premise is flawed: I'm always annoyed by the social science which purports to find that marriage improves the quality of life, whether that is health, mental health, child development, etc. What these studies actually find is that people who are married have higher (or lower or the same) average health, mental health, etc. This is at best a correlation between marriage and health (well-being, etc.) (and even that is not consistently found, as noted above). But now the important part (and this is Psychology 101, people): CORRELATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION. Just because two variables are associated does NOT mean that one of them causes the other. If every time a phone rings in the U.S., there is a baby born in India, does that prove that one causes the other? Not in the least. In this case, it may well be that those who get married are already more likely to be socially skilled, more mentally healthy, etc. than those who do not get married, and that the marriage itself plays no part in improving these qualities. So we can never assume that marriage has any causal impact until we do studies in which people are randomly assigned to get married or not...and I don't think I can get the human subjects board to agree to that one.
(Side note: Even if marriage does have some positive causal effect on people's lives, what would it be about marriage that would have the effect? Is it the legal recognition? Access to partner's health insurance? Social recognition? Different treatment from friends and family? Cohabitation? Commitment? Long-term partnering? Great gifts from the wedding? Without a clear model of what aspect of marriage has the beneficial effect, I'm loath to create marriage incentives, as we are working blind.)
Second of all, note the over-generalization: Even if there is some effect of marriage, it is unlikely to be the same for all people -- no relationship or social context will be universally beneficial to all people. Marriage, like any relationship, is enormously variable, and its effects will undoubtedly vary considerably, as the reporter notes. It's good relationships that have the potential to positively benefit people's lives: An unhappy, abusive, conflictual relationship will be more likely to decrease well-being than increase it.
Third of all, note the gendering: Marriage has generally been found to be much more consistently associated with good health and well-being for men than for women, and yet the social scientists promoting marriage continue to advocate incentives for marriage, as though this will improve everyone's lives. But, as the reporter notes, the report indicates that marriage will improve black men's lives -- to solve the crisis of black males, to reduce the juvenile delinquency among black males. Why is it women's job to improve men's lives? Isn't this just a variant on the Victorian trope that women's purity and moral goodness would save men from their bestial natures? Patriarchy raises its ugly head again.
And now the kicker...why does marriage benefit men more than women? Because of persistent inequalities in labor: Women do more household labor and more emotional/relationship labor than men on average in cross-sex couples. Because of continuing risks of domestic violence: Women are more likely to suffer significant physical injury (and risk of death) from domestic violence than are men. What does it all boil down to? Power. Men still hold more power than women on average, and as long as that imbalance persists, men will benefit more from couplehood than will women. The solution? Egalitarian relationships, which are consistently found to be more satisfying for both men and women. As the reporter notes, women (and men) need "non-conflictual, nonviolent, and fair" relationships.
The big question: How do we achieve this in a society still infused with traditions of patriarchy? When men still earn more than women (women earn $0.77 for each $1 a man earns on average), when positions of power are still dominated by men (seen a woman U.S. president yet?), when models of marriage still promote male dominance (albeit more subtly than in the past)...how do we create a movement of truly egalitarian relationships?
I know it is possible...I have it in my own life. It's fabulous. I want it for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)