Adolescent Sexuality by Dr. Karen Rayne

I am currently reading a short book called Sex in the light of Reincarnation and Freedom by Alan Howard (1980). Howard is a lecturer and writer about anthroposophy and Steiner education. I am grappling with his book, which is really the only discussion of sexuality from a Steiner perspective that I have found. Here are several quotes which I find quite evocative:

“Love is not something that happens; love is something we create. A powerful, dynamic attraction can happen to us, but not love. If, therefore, on the basis of such an attraction only, two people hasten into marriage with all the trappings of ’till-death-us-do-part’, then they are likely to discover that all kinds of other things can happen too.”

“Sex is certainly one of the expressions of love, but love itself has nothing to do with sex. Love is devotion to the destiny of the one loved… It imposes no restraints, sexual or otherwise. It makes no demands; it is not possessive. It is faithful only to itself, to love; and many can be loved as easily as one.”

I am still mulling over the implications of these and other points by Howard. And I wonder, what might be different for an adolescent who had this perspective of love, rather than the romantic ideal presented through the books, movies, and music of our time?

I encourage my readers to send me questions they want to know the answer to. First, because it provides me with an easy topic for the day. Second, because if you’re wondering something, the likelihood is that other people are too. With that in mind, here is a question from a regular reader:

Is it true that young people today are, as a group, taking a more casual view of the emotional aspect of sexual relations than young people of even ten years ago?

The short answer is: It’s more complicated than that.

The long answer is: It really depends on what you mean by “sexual relations.” It also really depends on who you ask and how they interpret the available information. Because the problem with answering this question is that we know a lot about WHAT teenagers are doing, but not much about WHY. So to give an approximate answer, I have to extrapolate from what sexual activities teenagers are actually doing, not how they actually feel or think about those activities.

It appears that teenagers are, in general, delaying sexual intercourse when compared to young people ten years ago. But not by much - something like three to six months. (This and reduced knowledge about pregnancy and STI prevention are apparently the sole legacies of abstinence-only sex education.) However, teenagers are engaging in oral (and perhaps anal) sex earlier than young people ten years ago.

So what do I think this means? We’ve done a pretty good job at tying together the cause and effect relationship of sexual intercourse and pregnancy/disease/emotional entanglements. Teenagers “get” that more than they used to. However, we have allowed anything except penile-vaginal intercourse to be classified as “not sex.” So teenagers aren’t associating oral sex (or maybe anal sex) with either disease spread or the emotional entanglements they generally ascribe to sexual intercourse.

Another short answer: In some ways yes, in some ways no.

I’ve introduced Dan before - he’s my favorite sex advice columnist. Here’s another short intro: Dan talks about sex and tells things like they are in a way few advice columnist (or people, for that matter) are willing or able to do. He’s the go-to-guy for everything from freaky to vanilla sex or relationship questions. He’s also exceptionally politically minded. He’s also a dad.

So I approached Dan to see if he would answer a few questions by e-mail about sex education. Here’s what he had to say:

KR: What should a twelve-year-old know about sex?
Dan: Well, hopefully before 12 a kid is familiar with basic reproductive biology — where babies come from, how babies are made, and how babies can be prevented. Kids also need to be aware of the non-reproductive aspect of sex; the pleasure of sex, the intimacy. Babies are great — had one myself, thanks — but adults don’t have sex primarily to make babies. Adults only rarely have sex to make babies. Adults have sex for fun, and to create, cement, or shore up partner bonds. You can’t leave that info out.

Thanks to Teri, an old high school buddy, for procuring it for me and you!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/04/laura-bush-abstinence/

The big news in feminist and gay rights circles is that Laura Bush told CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux that she believes condoms are “absolutely necessary” and that she’s fine with getting rid of the abstinence-only provision in PREFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief). This is pleasing news, although hardly extraordinary or radical.

I tried to find the interview on YouTube, but it wasn’t there. I also tried to find it just about anywhere else in mainstream media, and it wasn’t anywhere! The Feminist Daily News (who I linked to above) says one of their sources was CNN. Now, I’ve searched the CNN site relatively thoroughly this morning, and there is not a word about Laura Bush saying anything in support of condoms - just in support of faith-based organizations. It seems highly unlikely to me that the Feminist Daily News would falsify their sources, particularly since, while it is very cool that Laura Bush supports appropriate condom usage, it’s hardly worth lying about. It seems much more likely to me that CNN put the information out there, then realized (or were informed of?) their folly, and removed it. What’s up with that??

While I’ve been getting more and more of my news from bloggers rather than the mainstream media (MSM), and news bloggers are by and large very disillusioned with what the MSM is willing to publish, I haven’t been willing to denigrate the entire profession as being in the back pocket of the White House. My faith is beginning to slide, though.

So restore my faith in MSM! If anyone can find the story of Laura Bush supporting the inclusion of condoms in AIDS prevention on cnn.com, I’ll pay you $5. If you can find a video of an actual interview, I’ll pay you $10.

So your teenager is having sexual intercourse. That particular cat is out of the bag, and you’re stopping it is not the battle you are choosing the fight. The problem is that your son or daughter is having sexual intercourse without condoms. How do you fight that battle? Here are a few places to start:

1. Take them to Planned Parenthood to get tested for STDs. If you have a son, and you are looking for a bit of aversion therapy, make sure he gets tested for syphilis. (It’s a particularly nasty little test, and is not always included in a general round of STD testing.)
2. Make sure they know that minors (i.e., those under 18) can buy condoms. It is not against the law to sell condoms to minors. In fact, they can get them free from a number of places (google free condoms to find out where).
3. Leave a big bowl full of condoms in your teenager’s bathroom. That way, you know your teenager has access to free condoms. Make sure there are enough condoms so your teenager doesn’t worry that you’re trying to keep tabs on how many they’re using. Refill regularly with no comments. (Costco is a source of great big boxes of condoms.)
4. Ask your teenager every time they leave the house if they have a condom with them. Make them show it to you. Embarrassing? Yes. Drives the point home? Absolutely.
5. Make sure your teenager knows how to put on a condom. You can teach them, your partner can teach them, or some other adult can teach them. But there are just several points teenagers need to know about this (check the expiration date, pay attention to the reservoir on the end, make sure the condom comes out still over the penis, etc.). If you have a boy, tell him to practice putting one on during a masturbation session.
6. Educate your teenager (or have someone else educate them) on how to incorporate condoms into a romantic tryst. (What to say, how to convince an unwilling partner to use one, etc.)

Teenagers have sexual intercourse without condoms for many reasons. What you are trying to do with all of this education, of course, is to listen to each reason your teenager gives you for not using a condom and respond appropriately to it. As a sex educator, I try and instill the belief that the only reason to not wear a condom is if you are actively trying to get pregnant. In that situation, the assumed action will be to include a condom during sexual intercourse, and not wearing one would require discussion.

Yesterday, New Hampshire repealed their law which required minors to notify their parents that they were getting an abortion (the 2003 law was never enforced, due to a law suit by Planned Parenthood stating that it did not make provisions for the health and safety of the minor). Parental notification means that one or both parents must be informed of a minor’s abortion before it can take place. Repealing this law, and others like it, is critical to maintaining the rights of our teenagers. Here are some clear positions on adolescent abortions that I hold to be self-evident:

1. Delaying sexual intercourse is often in the psychological best-interest of young people.
2. Nevertheless, teenagers must learn how to effectively and consistently use contraceptives, and they must follow-through on that knowledge when they make the choice to have sexual intercourse.
3. Abortion is absolutely the last choice, when everything else has failed.
4. It is best for all parties involved for teenagers to make the choice to have an abortion with a parent or other trusted adult.
5. There are some parents who would not respond reasonably or appropriately to knowledge about their teenager daughter’s (a) sexual activity and (b) pregnant status.
6. These young girls must, in some cases, be protected from their parents.
7. Without legal access to abortions, some adolescent girls will seek out illegal abortions or try and perform one themselves.

This last point must be avoided at all costs. Parental notification laws leave girls who most need society’s help and support out in the cold. It is absolutely legitimate for abortion providers to encourage and support teenage girls in open conversation with their parents or another trusted adult.

The next step beyond parental NOTIFICATION laws are parental CONSENT laws. Parental consent laws are so outside the bounds of reasonableness that they should not even be discussed in polite company. To allow a parent to make the choice that their daughter must take a pregnancy to term is so vastly inappropriate I am almost unable to address the issue coherently. In Texas, we have a parental consent law. The closest place without such a parental notification or consent law is New Mexico. (Find out more about the state of abortion in your state.)

The thing is, I was born in 1979. I grew up in a post Roe vs. Wade world. I have always known, without a question of a doubt, that I and I alone control my reproductive system. Parental notification and consent laws undercut this most basic truth I have grown up taking for granted. Women of all ages have the sacred right and responsibility to give birth to and raise children only according to their means and ability at a given time.

So bravo, New Hampshire, for returning reproductive control squarely where it belongs: in the hands of individual women, regardless of their age.