Adolescent Sexuality by Dr. Karen Rayne

There’s an article in the NYTimes this week about how an increasing number of teenagers are having plastic surgery. The article says that in 2006 teenagers made up 70% of all of the people who had this particular type of surgery. Astoundingly, it’s to “fix” a problem that is generally outgrown in the later phases of adolescence.

Here’s what the surgery is for: gynecomastia.

Anyone? Anyone? Gynecomastia is the name for enlarged male breasts. In 2006, 14,000 adolescent boys ages 13 - 19 underwent plastic surgery to reduce their breast size.

This is outrageous! Why is no one throwing a total fit over this? The world would be screaming bloody murder if teenage girls were getting plastic surgery to make their body look more like a magazine cover, why aren’t they doing it about teenage boys? And what makes it even worse is that this is generally a condition that 1) is generally outgrown in a few years and 2) is generally associated with obesity and will resolve itself when excess weight is lost. So, just to be clear, what we’re talking about here is teenage boys having surgery to resolve a developmental and weight issue. Teenage girls would never be allowed to do such a thing, and nor should boys.

The article includes a number of young men who had the surgery as teenagers talking about how painful their life was before the surgery because of extreme teasing by their peers. I don’t want to diminish their pain. That’s horrible. But a surgical response is just completely unreasonable and damaging in the long run.

I know that in general it’s best for teenagers not to get pregnant. Their lives and the lives of their children are dramatically, and often negatively, effected by the young parental age. I know (and have done research and written about) the serious and wide-ranging negative physical, emotional, social, and psychological issues associated with teenage parents.

Nevertheless, when I look at the faces of the parents-to-be in this picture, I can only smile and wish them all the best in the world. The excitement and happiness that shine out from this young couple is astounding. Take a really close look at their faces - and remember that even if it was different for you, lots of teenagers are responsible, good people who will be just fine as parents.

This, from the Dinah Project, is all about a new form of permanent birth control (although I’d just go ahead and call a goose a goose and use the word sterilization). If you’re thinking of getting your tubes tied, this might be a better option. A gynecologist inserts one very small spring into each of your fallopian tubes. No surgery, very little discomfort. Over about three months your fallopian tubes scar up so that eggs can’t travel down them any more.

And this, from the Reverend Debra Haffner, about the kinds of rebukes and insults that sex educators face in this country. Among other things, she talks about her experiences as the Director of Education at Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington in the context Missouri banning Planned Parenthood from schools.

And finally, this from the RH Reality Check blog on young boys’ sexual experiences and education. The particular focus of the blog is on how to support teenage boys’ and young men’s physical and psychological health, particularly as they relate to sexual choices and experience.

They’re all good reads, I promise!

The big front page news this week is about Genarlow Wilson. If you haven’t heard about him, here’s a re-cap via Wilson’s wikipedia page:

Wilson v. State was a court case involving an appeal from the conviction of African-American man Genarlow Wilson, a former honors student and high school football player, involving the controversial sodomy laws of Georgia, United States.

Wilson had been convicted of aggravated child molestation because, at the age of seventeen, he had engaged in oral sex with a willing fifteen-year-old at a New Year’s Eve party. The age of consent of the state is sixteen.

The conviction was based on an amateur video tape showing Wilson engaging in sex with a 17-year-old girl during a private party, and later receiving oral sex from from a 15-year-old girl. The video shows the 17-year-old girl on the bathroom floor, then later having sex with Wilson. She appeared sleepy or intoxicated during the sex act but did not ask Wilson to stop. Waking up naked and in a stupor the next morning, she claimed to have been raped. Investigating the alleged rape, police later found condoms and evidence of drinking, as well as the video camera, in the motel room used for the party.

A jury acquitted Wilson of raping the older girl, but convicted him of aggravated child molestation against the 15-year-old. The “aggravated” nature of the charge refers to sodomy (oral sex) rather than a mere “immoral or indecent act.” Had Wilson had intercourse with the 15-year-old and not received oral sex from her, he would have been subject to a 5-year minimum prison term instead of the 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 16-6-4)

Georgia’s laws have since been changed (it’s called the Romeo and Juliet act) to allow teenagers to have sex with other teenagers. If the age of consent is crossed, the older teen may be charged with misdemeanor aggravated child molestation, with a one year sentence and no stipulations requiring registration as a sex offender.

And here is the update from yesterday, again from wikipedia:

Mr. Wilson’s conviction was overturned on June 11, 2007, by Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas H. Wilson (no relation) and replaced with a lesser charge of misdemeanor aggravated child molestation. That crime carries with it a 12-month sentence, which Genarlow Wilson has already served. Under the new ruling, he would not be required to register as a sex offender. Stated Judge Wilson, “The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice.”

Georgia’s Attorney General Thurbert Baker has appealed Judge Wilson’s decision, apparently staying Genarlow Wilson’s release. Baker maintains the judge did not have the authority to overturn the conviction and says the long-standing plea bargain offer remains on the table.

The plea deal, if accepted by Genarlow Wilson’s lawyers, would have allowed Genarlow Wilson to plead to First Offender Treatment, which would mean that he would not have a criminal record nor would he be subject to registering on the sex offender registry once his sentence had been completed. It could also result in Genarlow Wilson receiving a sentence substantially shorter than the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for which he was originally sentenced, possibly leading to his release based upon time already served.

In essence, the judge is retroactively changing Wilson’s sentence to what he would have received had the Romeo and Juliet act been in place at the time of his conviction and sentencing.

So what does all this mean for teenagers’ sexual choices? It’s pretty outrageous for a consensual act between teenagers just two years apart in age to result in a 10 year prison sentence (the young girl involved has consistently said that it was consensual, and the video apparently suggested the same). It’s made worse because if these two had just had intercourse, the sentence wouldn’t have been nearly as long. I don’t think oral sex should be more strongly punished than sexual intercourse. Georgia’s sodomy laws just have to be struck down. They’re outrageous. This entire case is just fraught with wrongs.

On the other hand, while I wasn’t on the jury and I haven’t seen the video, it sounds like Wilson’s interaction with the 17-year-old girl was rape. Call me crazy, but someone who was recently passed out in the bathroom, and who seems totally out of it is unable to give consent - and therefore sex with her constitutes rape.

So all in all, I wouldn’t object to Wilson’s sentence if it were for the correct sex crime. That Wilson was acquitted from that act suggests that he will feel justified in doing it again. Because clearly, he’ll think, it wasn’t that wrong. What a horrible impression for anyone to get.

But this oral sex thing is really wrong.

The Nation published a thorough and interesting article on the democrat’s decision to increase funding to abstinence-only sex education.

Then, during the last week or so, a number of blogs wrote about the same issue. Most of these blogs are political in nature, and so the focus is on trying to figure out why on earth the democrats would do such a thing.

Here is what Avedon Carol has to say:

This program is immoral and irresponsible on its face, just leaving aside that it is a right-wing crackpot scheme and a kick-back to fringe religious groups as well. The majority of parents in America want their kids to get real sex education, not enforced ignorance and lies. There is not one single tolerable excuse for the program’s existence, and it is the shame of progressives everywhere that they - and elected Democrats - have not been screaming bloody murder about this outrageous misuse of taxpayers’ money. Tell your Representative in the House that continuing Ignorance-Only is indefensible, and make sure your Senators know how you feel, too.

And from an earlier post…

And then they did things like spend amazing amounts of money to have schools tell kids not to have sex. Now, you can cancel all sex education, or you can have real sex education, but why on earth would you need to pay strangers to tell kids not to have sex when they can hear it for free from their own parents, just as we always have? Can you say, “Waste of money”? I thought you could. Did you hear conservatives say it? Rarely, if it all.

And here is what Digby has to say:

So you have an obscenely expensive program that the data shows doesn’t work, that Democrats don’t want and that actually hurts kids. The only people it benefits are a bunch of right wing extremist scam artists who would rather put ice picks in their eyes than support a Democrat — and the Republican party, who continue to receive plenty of largesse in return. Yet the Democratic congress has agreed to fund it.

This is political malpractice — the K Street project in reverse. If you are going to sell out your principles, you are at least supposed to get something out of it. These programs help Republicans and only Republicans. Talk about getting the milk for free…

The GOP understands very well that power begets power and they went so far over the top that they actually began to illegally use executive power to rig elections (and possibly spy on their political enemies — we don’t know.) It would be wrong for Democrats to go that far, of course. But if the Democrats are unwilling or unable to even pass legislation that has the salutary effect of enhancing their political power, the least they could do is not pass legislation that enhances the political clout of the Republicans. It’s not too much to ask, particularly when the interests they are funding are actually hurting America’s kids with superstitious nonsense.

From DailyKos…

What in the hell are Obey and Pelosi thinking on this one? Study after study has shown that abstinence-only education not only doesn’t work, but is harming the health of young people. This is just insane. And why are they doing this?
…
This is more than just controversial social policy. This is a profound failure on the part of Democratic leadership, once again, to stand up to a harmful conservative agenda. This, of all ridiculous policies wrought on the nation by the GOP Congress, is a no-brainer to let die.

And this from Bill Scher:

If this compromise goes through, more kids will continue to be miseducated about sex, damaging our public health.

There is logic to the saying: pick your battles.

But this is a good battle to pick — showing the new Congress knows when a government program doesn’t work and doesn’t deserve funding.

If congressional leaders want to build trust for ideas where government funds are critical, they need to show they know the difference between good and bad government.

All of this is to say, what’s going on here? Why are the democrats being so vastly irresponsible and throwing good money after bad in a time of deficit, not to mention the little issue of teaching teenagers incorrect and emotionally damaging information about what will probably become a critical aspect of their future romantic relationships.

While for crass business purposes, I may get more business if all the schools are teaching is abstinence-only-before-marriage sex education, I would rather be put out of business by a brilliant sex education curriculum being integrated into all middle and high schools.

Jan Matney has a great post on her blog today, talking about the need to strengthen our communities. I am very blessed to live in a neighborhood that is much like the one she describes (and very different from the series of neighborhoods I lived in as a child). It’s a long post, so I suggest you go read it on her blog. But here’s a few highlights:

…
I could go on, remembering Mrs. Black, our eighty plus next door neighbor who, out of sympathy I think, brought me flowers when I was two weeks overdue–and she carried with her a comforting tale about the approaching full moon. Our son was born under a full moon, and I look back on Mrs. Black and see how naturally she shared her wisdom and kindness with me.
…
If you think of time as a piece of paper, I suggest that as a society, we no longer have the margins. Dr. Richard Swenson talks about how we can create more Margin time, and he also says that we’ve filled our analogous paper more and more, until we have fewer margins or unmarked, spontaneous time–That makes sense to me, considering the number of two career families, women who work outside the home, overloaded with the second job of housework and childcare, besides the reality of cottage industries seeping into family life.
…

Well said, Jan!

Yesterday I spoke with Howard Schiffer, author of How to be the Best Lover: A guide for teenage boys. I wrote about Howard’s book several days ago. Here is our conversation:

K: Can you explain why you wrote How to be the Best Lover: A guide for teenage boys?
H: Because I felt like I had to. My son was 13, and I thought, wait a second, he’s getting this horrible view of women, all that’s out there is his friends and the media. And since the book was written, what’s been interesting to me is that people are so scared in this country. People don’t realize that’s it’s really all about connections. And what I see from the kids is that they get it instantly get it: where I was coming from and that it was written for them. There are kids who hadn’t spoken to me for years and they read the book, and then they come up and tell me that it’s a great book.

K: And what about your experiences as a teenage boy? Did you feel that you had enough information?
H: My teenage experience was horrible. It was a lot of the motivation for writing the book – wanting to get it right and redo my past.

I was with older boys who saw girls as objects. Young boys were finding porn and passing that around. They were looking at these little cartoon books that were really pornographic, they were just about screwing and they were about women as objects. And the whole focus when I was 13 or 14 was all about when you were going to get laid. And if someone had a girlfriend, the only thing was that they might be able to get some.

And so my whole experience was horrible. It was just about the sex, there wasn’t any connection there. And the experiences felt bad. They weren’t satisfying. They weren’t anything I felt good about. There was a lot of shame involved.

I knew that sometime my dad was going to come talk to me about sex. And all of a sudden one day he was in the dinning room with me and my mom disappeared into the kitchen. And he asked, “So let’s talk about sex.” And I had my answer ready, I said, “Okay, what do you want to know?” And he was so scared, so taken aback, he said “Oh,” and that was all.

It was the same with Austin [my son, when he was 13]; he asked why we needed to talk about sex. We were going to talk over a period time while kind of going through this book, but he said he had already read the book. So if I hadn’t really wanted this conversation to happen, it wouldn’t have. I told him that this [sexual awakening] is something that everybody goes through and nobody wants to talk about it

Even in California, even in 2007, even in men’s groups where guys are really trying to open up, guys just don’t want to talk about if their girls like to have oral sex

K: How was Austin’s experience with sexual awakening?
H: Austin has been with two serious girlfriends. His second serious girlfriend, he was about 17, started sleeping over. She lived about an hour away, and would sometimes spend the night in the guest bedroom. Then there was one weekend when it was late, they were watching a movie, and everyone else went to sleep. For some reason, I don’t remember why, all the other beds were taken, including the guest bed. And so Austin and his girlfriend ended up sleeping together that night. The next morning I said to one of my younger girls, “Where’s Austin and his girlfriend?” and she said, “Oh, they’re still asleep.” And it just came out of this very natural situation. The bonus was that we got to have them in the house. They woke up and we got to have breakfast together. It was just a chance we got to have it be normal.

So there’s been a tremendous transition for me in this whole process, getting to give this knowledge to my children who are getting what I didn’t have.

K: How have your experiences with and around this book played into your perception and beliefs about sex education?
H: If all you’re getting is from your friends and the Internet, it’s not okay. Because you’re like, “What is all this?” and you have to go try it out to figure out what it really is. But if someone is really giving you real information, you’re able to say, “Well, maybe I don’t actually want to be giving someone a blow job right now.” But if you give them this glorified fantasy they want to go try it out. Most of the information hovers right between “don’t do it” and “just do it.” The reality is that there is a tremendous biological imperative to have sex. So you can’t just say don’t do it, you have to talk about it. And the liaise-faire parents are completely ripping off their kids by saying, “Well, they’re just going to go do it” because there’s no guidance there. I ask parents “Do you want your kids going into a sex education class taught by a 14 year old?”

The thing is, with teenagers now, there’s more illusion out there because the Internet is so prevalent. They’re under this idea, I have a 15-year-old daughter, and she thinks she knows everything. They think that because they’ve seen some porn or something on the Internet and they don’t get that it’s really about this connection thing. And they’ll spend years before they figure it out, the way I did.

K: Tell me about the book you suggest reading after this one, it’s called First Love?
H: It’s a collection of people’s first times. It really helps young people awaken to the fact that it’s just not always nice. A lot of the people I interviewed realized the first time they were naked in front of someone else how naked they really felt. And past being naked, they don’t realize how vulnerable it is, for girls definitely, and I think probably for guys. And they way guys deal with it is they just stuff it all, and they can’t talk about how weird it is because no one is talking about it. So this book shows them some of those things.

K: Have you considered writing a similar book for teenage girls?
H: I have thought about it, I have been asked to do it. I honestly have just run out of money and time. The other two books were really done because I felt like they had to be done, and I haven’t made any money on them. What I’ve found is that girls really like Best Lover for boys, and so I think there would be a market for a guide for girls.

K: Thank you for talking with us, Howard.
H: Thank you for doing what you’re doing. I am always so encouraged to see people getting real information out there.

I am so frustrated by the liberal tendency towards thinking about things to do death and writing about thinking about things to death! We need to get some serious passion flowing through our veins, folks!

Comprehensive sex education teaches teenagers to value their body and their lover’s body for the rest of their lives. It teaches them respect for the human body and the pleasure it can bring. It teaches them to take ownership of their body and their choices. Comprehensive sex education must be in the lives of each and every teenager to teach them the responsibilities and the values that come with decisions about sexuality. Comprehensive sex education is the most critical thing for teenagers to learn - more important than anything else they could possibly learn in high school because it is has to do with the very center of the human experience, and will remain there, at the most intimate and critical level of each and every person for their entire lives.

And, in direct contradiction to their very own report on the issue, Congress is about to vote to increase funding to abstinence only programs. This is so vastly inappropriate and unacceptable I cannot find the words to express my outrage fully. But needless to say, this decision will continue to cut nation-wide attempts to bring thoughtfulness and good judgment into the current wasteland that is the high school “health” class.

Advocates for Youth recently wrote this in an e-mail:

Advocates has set up an easy way to express your outrage to the congressional leaders who are currently looking at increasing this inappropriate, irresponsible, and wasteful funding.

Get passionate about this issue - these are our children, they deserve the truth, and we are the adults responsible for giving it to them.

So much of the pro-abstinence-only-until-marriage argument hinges on intercourse being bad for teenagers emotionally (you can go visit www.abstinence.net to learn more about abstinence-only education). But a recent study from the University of Minnesota says that, except for the very youngest girls (under 15) and boys (under 14) whose relationships fall apart immediately after sex, teenagers’ emotional stability is just fine after their first experience with intercourse. And this was a very serious study - the researchers followed 8,563 students, 7th - 12th graders, for 18 months and then compared the emotional stability of the students who lost their virginity in that time to those who did not. The two groups of students who were 15 and older (those who had sexual intercourse for the first time and those who did not have sexual intercourse) showed no differences in their mental health. This a great piece of information to support comprehensive sex education.

Thanks to Cory Silverberg for publishing information about the UMN press release.

The Washington Post published an interactive set of articles about teenage girls’ shopping habits yesterday. It includes a number of articles, an interactive look at the mall where they went shopping, and pictures and video of the shopping experience. Throughout these articles and pictures, the authors and camera-pointers theoretically focused on the girls’ styles. But they seemed oblivious to the fact that they were really focusing on sex.

This collection of articles is focused in the extreme on the very consumerist, very body- and fashion-oriented society that encourages girls to think about their body and their sex appeal at all times and in all ways. The journalists claimed to be surprised by the attention the girls paid to the price and stylistic details of the items they purchased and the items they passed up. They also appeared to be surprised that the girls passed by the very shortest shorts and the very smallest tanks. But of course these very hip, very wealthy girls are extremely image conscious. They know what makes them look good, and they know what might make them look like a slut. They walk the balance of showing just as much skin as possible to attract boys while not showing too much to attract the wrong kind of boy (or, more frighteningly, the wrong kind of man).

Girls bodies are commodities in our culture. Boys and men stare at them and whistle at them and grope them. Sometimes girls like the attention, sometimes they don’t. And the clothes they wear are critical to getting as much of the right kind of attention and as little of the wrong kind as possible. (What kind of clothes this calls for, of course, differs between cultures and subgroups.) This Washington Post article tapped directly into girls’ core need/fear to be dressed on a very narrow tightrope of sexy-but-not-slutty. The Post reporters came very close to talking about the issue in this article, but stopped just short. I wish they had gone further - that would have been a truly interesting and newsworthy piece of journalism.