America's Obsession with Women's Sexuality: Prescription for Change?
Reading The Purity Myth, I was struck by the clarity of Jessica's call to arms. America, you're obsessed with women's sexuality in general and with virginity in particular--get over it! The strength of the book lies in the connections it makes. Jessica convincingly argues that there's a link between the hundreds of millions spent on abstinence-only education (ah, gift of the Bush administration), squeamishness about giving girls the HPV vaccine, and purity balls and rituals. (Best example, from page 32: a dad gives his daughter a gold rose pin with the note, "You are like a beautiful rose. Each time you engage in pre-marital sex, a precious petal is stripped away. Don't leave your future husband holding a bare stem. Abstain.")
I'm less certain of the book's prescription for change. I agree with Jessica in general terms: Quit fetishizing virginity. Separate the question of a woman's ethics from when she first had sex or how many partners she has had. I also agree that there's no need to condemn teen sex across the board. One of my favorite things about the TV show Friday Night Lights, which I've been writing about for Slate, is that it depicts teen sex that's affectionate and awkward rather than eroticized or disastrous.
But I do think that it's too simple to say that teen sex shouldn't be taboo, and leave it at that. For some kids, sure, that will be a welcome relief. For others, I'm not so sure. Jessica cites a survey showing that "47 percent of teens who had experienced some form of sexual intimacy said they'd felt pressure to do something they didn't want to do--and young women were more likely to have had this experience than young men." I would bet that a disproportionate number of those girls are low-income and not white, exactly the girls who Jessica and many of us are particularly concerned for, and rightly so.
Will taking away the taboo take away the pressure, or even reduce it? Again, I'm not sure. I'd argue that we want teenagers to have sex lovingly and safely--or not at all, because sex can, sometimes, explode with meaning. Probably, we want teenagers to have sex sparingly, because a lot of their relationships aren't especially loving and safe. That's not necessarily what the testing of adolescence produces. And so I think there's a lot of work to be done to figure out what should replace the purity myth--the details and multi-faceted layers of what kind of sex ed makes sense for what kind of kids, and how parents should weigh in. I'd love to hear all of your thoughts about this. It's complicated and hard. It's also the door the book opens for all of us to walk through.
""You are like a beautiful rose. Each time you engage in pre-marital sex, a precious petal is stripped away. Don't leave your future husband holding a bare stem. Abstain.""
I am saddened by the profound perverseness of that statement. Strangling Mother Nature is no way to nurture healthy kids. Such attitudes twist sexuality into grotesque obsessions.
April 7, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't understand is what it is about marriage that no longer causes one to lose one's precious "petals." I mean, once your husband deflowers you, doesn't each successive sexual act turn you into just as much of a slut as those girls who are doing it outside of marriage? Sure, you're doing it with the same guy every time, but what's to say he won't get tired of you, once your "precious gift" has been given to him, and go looking for someone else to do the same thing? Perhaps we need to emulate King Solomon of that holiest of holy books, with his hundreds of virgin brides, and allow men to marry as many women as they want, so they can keep getting a "precious gift" again and again...
April 7, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. From the point of sexual selection (evolution), abandonment and philandering by men are a real danger for women -- raising children is expensive, and doing it alone is much harder. She could very well be stabbed in the back, which is why choosing a good mate is a common concern. Just like being cuckolded is the danger for men -- wasting resources on another man's genes. Again, choosing an unfaithful mate can be disastrous, from an evolutionary point of view. Both have different evolutionary risks and incentives in the "sexual economy".
Of course, modern society can put a lid on these issues -- we have effective contraception, abortion, welfare, alimony and child support, and DNA tests for paternity. But our brain is 200,000 years old, so doesn't always reflect our conscious, rational views and 'enlightened' attitudes.
April 8, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that in my opinion it's far better to say nothing at all to your kids about sex rather than giving them propaganda like the rose metaphor.
If you always make an effort every day to sense how your kids are doing, and if you are always available for respectful conversation, then they are more likely to share their challenges and problems with you in a way that will help them learn about themselves and life.
April 7, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 7, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"47 percent of teens who had experienced some form of sexual intimacy said they'd felt pressure to do something they didn't want to do..."
Most of us have felt pressure in our jobs to do things we didn't want to do, but that doesn't always mean we should quit the jobs. Sex is part of our lives. Teens have conflicting feelings about sex: they simultaneously do and do not want to do things. Honest communication will help them make decisions about what to do or not do, and when to do it or not do it, and with whom, to best nurture their emotional, social, and physical health.
April 7, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How good it would be if I could tell my superiors, "I'm sorry, but I only run Excel spreadsheets for my wife."
April 7, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone is suggesting that sex be abandoned. The world would become less... human. (And probably a lot less smoky.) But I seem to read underneath these posts the tenet that children shouldn't be advised to abstain from sex. Whether they are or not, it's unlikely the advice will be followed - since by the time teenagers become teenagers they have been drenched with sex via the mass media. It's used to sell everything from cars to carpet cleaner, it enlivens entertainment, it's scrutinized obsessively by our academics (as we see here) and it's a power totem in that it's crucial to at least appear as though we're "gettin' enough". We can't stop talking about it, thinking about it, and, occasionally, (especially when drunk) doing it.
Nothing so epitomizes the irrelevance of the salon left than endlessly fretting that someone, somewhere is escaping the strictures of their inert dogma. Folks: It isn't 1956 anymore. Anywhere.
April 7, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also true, and we can't forget this, that sexual desire is primarily caused by puberty.
April 7, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAMMIT! You're right! I knew the reason must be dazzlingly obvious!
April 8, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How about explode with baby?"
There are to many ways available to prevent "exploding with a baby."
"Will taking away the taboo take away the pressure, or even reduce it?"
In a nutshell - YES, since the pressure is caused solely by the fact that sex is a "taboo" subject.
Young women are caught between their God given desire to have children and society's taboos which tell them that premarital sex and having children out of wedlock is wrong.
April 7, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if this creepy business of young girls with their fathers is some kind of considered conscious social ideal--and not, as is perfectly obvious, an entirely libidinal and inappropriate celebration of sexuality in repressed form.
April 7, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) You appear not to understand that there are ways to separate sex and reproduction. Yea, medical science! Thanks for the pill, the condom, and yes, abortion as back-up in case these fail (which they do rarely if you're using them correctly---half of women getting abortions used nothing at all).
2) If you teach girls that they are human beings with a right to say no, then they can say yes and no on their own terms. Or they can---and you might want to sit down for this---actually initiate sex because they want it. It's true!
If the only way a girl can say no is by referring to some outside authority, we as a society have failed that girl.
April 7, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the only way a girl can say no is by referring to some outside authority, we as a society have failed that girl.
Exactly. Well said.
April 8, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding right about whether taking away the taboo will increase the pressure? Of course it will because our society will completely mishandle everything that would have to go along with that in order for eliminating the taboo not to increase the pressure on teens.
It isn't just an obsession with women's sexuality though clearly it is the sexuality of young women that gets the vast majority of all the guilt/shame/stigma and so on. Our society is obsessive about sex period and in a very unhealthy, dysfunctional, hypocritical way. It heaps shame and guilt wherever it can, but especially on young women while simutaneously transmitting the contradictory message that sex is the only thing that counts/makes you a grownup/makes you cool and so on. And we obsess about it as a culture in extremely adolescent (at best) way. It's incredibly immature and is yielding disasterous results for young people and for society. I would think that the pressure felt by young women has little class or race distinction. It's present everywhere. The pressure may be different for young women higher up the socioeconomic ladder, but it's relentless for them all. Making matters worse is our scizophrenic cultural message that tells young men it's okay to pressure and push and try to see "how far you can get". It's nuts and all our kids deserve better.
Until our culture decides to approach sexuality in an adult, mature, nonjudgmental way we will continue to see all of this crap happening to all of our young women and men and it will continue doing harm to them.
April 7, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a big fan of drive-by expression of whole-hearted agreement with and approval of comments, becuase they don't really add anything to the dialog. But, in this case, I feel compelled to make an exception. Excellent comment.
April 8, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta run to work, but doesn't the focus of Emily's thoughts on the young women at risk of being pressured into sex they 're not sure of, go to our education of, cultural pressures on, and cultural expectations for OUR YOUNG MEN ??
Who is talking about educating them to become responsible lovers, not quick-shot hustlers ??
I'm probably not the best one to be talking, I was near socio/psychopathic in all phases of my personal relationships -- and my relationship with myself -- until my late 20's, but in my defense I always knew that I needed a willing partner, even if I was very confused about what loving relationship really entailed in terms of attitude and effort on my part ...
April 7, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Best example, from page 32: a dad gives his daughter a gold rose pin with the note, "You are like a beautiful rose. Each time you engage in pre-marital sex, a precious petal is stripped away. Don't leave your future husband holding a bare stem. Abstain.")
This is disturbing. I wonder, when one asks people like this father what they mean by such claims, literally, what answer do they give? What answer could they possibly give? It sounds as though they think each human female comes with a finite quantity of "loving life essence" that is somehow drained away or transferred to the male during sexual acts, and can thus be "used up". So it must be saved or there will be none left for the husband.
For others, I'm not so sure. Jessica cites a survey showing that "47 percent of teens who had experienced some form of sexual intimacy said they'd felt pressure to do something they didn't want to do--and young women were more likely to have had this experience than young men."
Indeed, this seems to be part of what is behind the virginity movement. It is a lot easier to tell a pushy guy, "I am saving myself for my husband" than to tell him, "I am saving myself for someone who is not you."
April 7, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, please stop this ridiculous, over-the-top exaggeration on this issue. America is not obsessed over women's sexuality or virginity. A relatively small proportion of the population, in the grip of a sincere if unhealthy attachment to traditional religious teaching, is obsessed, not America as a whole.
Americans on the whole are quite tolerant of female sexuality. In fact, the whole virginity/purity movement is a reaction to the widespread acceptance of female sexual liberation. Ask yourself: if you're a woman over the age of about 18, is there any taboo regarding sexual activity if you're not from one of these religion-obsessed communities? I would argue that for the vast majority of American women, this is simply not an issue.
I am not arguing that there aren't mixed messages given to girls regarding sex. I am also not arguing that the conflation of virginity and "purity" has gone away. I'm just saying that for most women it seems to me that there is plenty of freedom to act in whatever way they want sexually.
If you really want to see obsession with female sexuality, try going just about anywhere in the Muslim world - and not just in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. That'll put it in perspective.
April 7, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than focus on purely voluntary or cultural reasons, an evolutionary perspective seems the most straight-forward explanation:
Female chastity and virginity have been themes in human society for ages, and for a reason: Men have unlimited sperm to give, and women have limited eggs and limited time (And even worse, pregnancy and nursing can last two years, and raising the children two decades!). They are the finite resource, while men are the disposable one. This explains probably everything you need to know about the sexual "economy".
Add to this the uncertainty over paternity (while maternity is absolutely certain) and you have all the incentives in the world for men to be anxious about female sexuality. Men don't want to waste resources raising other men's children. Men want to pass along their genes to future generations, and must compete with other men to do so (since eggs are finite, and sperm are infinite).
Consider male virginity vs. female virginity: If a man and woman are married, but it turns out that the male was not a virgin, does it matter? He can still create new sperm for his bride. What about if the woman is not a virgin? She might very well be pregnant. If she is pregnant, she will not be able to conceive the groom's child for at least nine months, and longer if nursing. You have a likely two year wait for having the groom's child. Then he still has the burden of raising another man's child for 18 years, with all ther hardship and expense that entails. The woman, however, is raising all of her own children. Thus, we have the perfect scenario for paranoia. This is why female chastity is a concern for the ages. Women might not 'get it', since it is not their fear (and so far, all the authors are women!), but that doesn't mean it has been erased from the minds of men, or at least the reptilian portion.
I'm not saying this is good or bad. But these are the unspoken calculations that the male and female of our species make. I think the discussion thus far has ignored these important, and very stubborn, factors of human nature. It's not simply because people have hangups or backward attitudes that this disparity exists. It's the very real differences in our circumstances.
You might check out this excellent book for more on this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1239148891&sr=11-1
April 7, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But I do think that it's too simple to say that teen sex shouldn't be taboo, and leave it at that. For some kids, sure, that will be a welcome relief. For others, I'm not so sure. Jessica cites a survey showing that "47 percent of teens who had experienced some form of sexual intimacy said they'd felt pressure to do something they didn't want to do--and young women were more likely to have had this experience than young men." I would bet that a disproportionate number of those girls are low-income and not white, exactly the girls who Jessica and many of us are particularly concerned for, and rightly so."
So, do you know as a fact or not that "a disproportionate number of those girls are low-income and not white"?
What are you basing that assumption on? If you have some basis in fact, state it.
But if you're making a wild guess like that, how is that assumption about lower class girls not different from America's general unease with women's sexuality?
April 7, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 7, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that the sole reason girls have sex is to "win someone's affection" is dehumanizing to young women. Women are, like men, genetically programmed to feel a desire to have sex, and sex, if done correctly, feels good. I have no idea why so many conservatives insist that the sole reason young women would want to have sex is for the esteem of young men. Classic Othering of women, an attempt to make it seem like we are so different from men that we shouldn't really be treated like people.
Both men and women and boys and girls like sex for a mix of affection, horniness, pleasure and self-esteem.
April 8, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, someone's a little worked up about them sex-havin' girls. And, I noticed elsewhere, virgin wives. I'm not sure I buy your big concern with the health and well-being of today's young women as your real concern.
But then this is just the usual knee-jerk contrarianism. It's boring for me. Is it boring for you?
April 7, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops--that was meant as reply to immediately preceding.
April 8, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I would bet that a disproportionate number of those girls are low-income and not white."
I would bet that you're wrong. 180 degrees wrong. How much you wanna bet?
White kids in affluent high schools are a lot more into alcohol and other drugs than poorer, darker kids, probably because they can afford the stuff and they can afford to deal with the consequences if they're busted. When you find a girl who did something she didn't want to do, you're likely to find alcohol.
Why do you assume that white, affluent kids are less manipulable than others? I think you need to think deeply about that.
"because sex can, sometimes, explode with meaning."
Sometimes? Maybe for you. For me, there's no such thing as meaningless sex, which is why I'm monogamous (and hope that I remain that way, to keep my sanity).
April 8, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I absolutely cannot abide--and what i think is illustrated quite well in the rose-pin quote--is the notion that every time a girl/woman has sex, she loses something. It's all over the language we use to talk about sexuality--giving it up, losing your virginity, putting out. The real call to action here should be transforming our view of sex from a commodity (something that is given/taken) to an experience.
Nowhere is the sex-as-commodity view more clearly laid out than in the discussion around Steve Harvey's new book, "Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man" which actually includes the bizarre and unsettling reference to sex as a woman's "cookie." I don't even know.
April 8, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of losing virginity, isn't it more like gaining womanhood - becomming complete as a mature sexual person?
April 8, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that link, stephanie.
April 8, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink