Adolescent Sexuality by Dr. Karen Rayne

Yesterday I put forward what I have been able to gather about the FLDS events in San Angelo, Texas. I asked for readers’ opinions about the events, and the comments were particularly impassioned and came from radically different points of view. I said I would write today about my opinions and interpretations of the events. I acknowledge that some of yesterday’s commenters, and everyone who agrees with their perspective, are going to disagree with me. There’s no way around that. But I still feel compelled to outline my reaction.

First, I want to point out that it seems that if you (1) distrust the media and/or (2) distrust the state of Texas, you’re going to be inclined to think a horrible thing has been done here. On the other hand, if you’re inclined to (1) trust the media and/or (2) trust the state of Texas, you’re going to be inclined to think that justice is in the process of being served.

So where do I stand on the general trustworthiness of the media and the state?

I believe the media is tied to advertisers - and is really only interested in gathering eyes for the advertisers rather than actually conveying relevant and important information. So I think they over-state and sensationalize everything to increase viewers. But there is generally a grain of truth if you dig hard enough.

I believe the state generally, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services specifically, are made up of hardworking people who are dedicated to doing the best they can to keep children safe. However, these people are generally over-worked, under-paid, and do incredibly hard work. So they absolutely make mistakes, including occasionally over-reacting or under-reacting.

And here’s a bedrock belief that I think guides everything else: Marrying young girls to much older men to produce babies is wrong. This is a form of gender-based slavery (rather than ethnicity-based slavery), and it is wrong. Is it wrong if the FLDS’ religious doctrine tells someone to do it? Yes. Is it wrong if Muslim doctrine tells someone to do it? Yes. Is it wrong even if it was the norm 1500 years ago? Yes.

Was the FLDS compound marrying young girls to much older men to produce babies? All indications suggest that at least some parts of the community were. And that has to be stopped.

Because of the world we live in, it’s most likely the state who is going to step in and demand that the FLDS give their girls enough time to grow up before they become wives and mothers. Is that ideal? No, of course not. But the children must be kept emotionally, developmentally, and sexually safe while it is determined whether and under what conditions they can be reunited with their families.

But here is where I am at a loss. The children who have been taken from the FLDS compound have lived very - extremely - sheltered lives. The foster care system is absolutely not in any way the place for them to live. But where else to go? Not home - not to foster care. This is where my grief at the situation reaches the place where I circle back on myself, not knowing where to turn.

These children need quiet, attentive homes where the daily rhythms are as close as possible to what they have known all of their lives to live in until they are (hopefully) able to go back to their families with an action plan in place. I called the Texas foster care hotline this morning to see if there was a way to become a foster placement for these children. But there is not. I understand - they certainly wouldn’t want to fast track individuals simply to meet the needs of these children because they would inevitably approve people who should not be approved. But nevertheless, this is an extraordinary situation. And I hope the state rises to extraordinary heights meet the needs of these children.

There is so much to talk about in this case - feel free to ask me questions in the comments section and I’ll try to answer as thoughtfully and fully as I can.

I have been thinking, reading, and speaking with more people about the heartrendingly painful events taking place here in Texas. 416 children from a Fundamentalist Church of Later Day Saints (FLDS) ranch were taken into state custody just over two weeks ago. This point everyone agrees on. Almost everything else, it seems, have people disagreeing.

There are some groups, including the ACLU, who see this as a civil rights issue - the freedom (or state imposed lack-thereof) to practice religion.

There are other groups who couch the issue purely in terms of sexual abuse against teenage girls.

There are more and less sensationalistic reports about various aspects of the events.

So after reading what I could, and talking those who know how child abuse cases in Texas go, and thinking about the myriad issues, here is how I see the facts of things:

There are essentially three positions here: the state, the parents, and the children.

The state lawyers are alleging that FLDS pre-teen and teenage girls are put into arranged spiritual marriages with much older men when they are younger than is legally allowed by the state (16 years old here in Texas). There may be girls as young as 8 or 9 who are married, although the state suggests that most of the marriages happen between 12 and 14. These young girls are told that their greatest gift is to produce as many children as possible for their husbands.  The lawyers for the state say that girls this young having sex with adult men, regardless of their marital status, is statutory rape and sexual abuse.

The parents (mostly the mothers) and their lawyers state that the FLDS group is a tightly knit, loving community of families and that there is no abuse of any kind happening on their ranch.  From what I have been able to gather, they have said as little as possible about what ages they allow their daughters to marry and have children.

The children want to go home.

Today I will continue to process these thoughts, read the thoughts of others, and talk with people I think will have additional insights.  I’ll gather my thoughts and reactions and opinions for tomorrow.

In the meantime, what do you think about the FLDS events here in Texas?

I have been thinking a lot recently about rape, in all it’s forms. From rape within the context of a relationship to the stranger on the street. My experience at the Vagina Monologues drew me deeper into this line of thought.

Here’s the statistic that’s struck me the most: 1 out of every 3 women in the US military is raped by another member of the US armed forces. 1 out of every 3. Raped. Another member of the US armed forces.

That’s shocking.

So much of education around rape is aimed at women - how to avoid situations that might lead to rape (no drugs, no alcohol, never walk alone after dark, etc.), how to be clear about sexual intentions (”Stop. I do not want to do that.”), how to get help after a rape (crisis hotlines, women’s resource centers, etc.). This education is critical. It lets women know that a rape is not their fault, and that they are not alone.

But focusing on the women’s half of a rape experience is not anywhere near enough. Preventing rape is what we need to be focusing on.

But not very much attention is put on educating men on how not to rape, why not to rape. So I’ve been wondering how (or whether) parents and sex educators can effectively introduce the topic of rape into conversations with preteen and teenage boys.

I like the way the Unitarian Universalist sex ed curriculum Our Whole Lives deals with the issue. There is a story told of a date between two college students. The story is told first from the woman’s perspective, and then from the man’s perspective. It’s clear from the woman’s story that she was raped, and clear from the man’s story that he had no idea he was raping her.

But I don’t feel like it’s enough. And I’m not sure how to provide an outline for a conversation where the young man doesn’t feel like he is being assumed to be a potential rapists - because he will shut down to the conversation if he feels that way. However, the majority of sex ed curricula that present rape do so under the (apparent) belief that none of the boys in the room will ever rape a woman. And that’s clearly just not the case, or women wouldn’t be raped as often as they are.

So how can we adults educate the following generations of boys so that they will not rape?

I know there are a lot of smart people with a lot to say about sex and sex education who read this blog. Some of you get it by e-mail (I know because I have your e-mail addresses! ) and some of you get it by RSS.  Please speak up today. Come to the site and leave a comment. Let me and other readers know what you think about how to educate boys about rape. Forward this link or this post on to others and ask that they leave their ideas too. I see this as a critical topic that’s not getting enough discussion. So let’s get it started here!

 (Written by guest blogger Wendy Harlowe.)

I said I would write about substance abuse and adolescent sexuality, but I am amending that. I think there are plenty of people who use alcohol and drugs without abusing them (experimentation lies in this realm), but I think my opinions still stand.

Instances of rape (including date rape) are much, much higher if the girl/woman has had anything to drink, or any kind of recreational drug. And I think this isn’t talked about enough (although I know Dr. Rayne has referred to this correlation in the past). When you’ve had even one drink, your inhibitions lower and your natural caution goes by the wayside.

Please, consider, on a first date or any situation where you are around people you don’t know well, don’t trust well, please just don’t drink or drug! Its a good enough reason not to. The benefits of the recreation just don’t measure up to the serious safety issues.

I remember when I was young, my junior high actually showed “Reefer Madness” as an anti-drug message in our 7th grade science class. It was hilarious! And one of the things that’s important to include when talking to young people about the dangers of drugs and alcohol is that it feels good! That’s why people do it, and that’s why people can get addicted. Same thing with sex. When adults want to create “danger” messages, if they don’t include the fact that it all feels good, if they are only trying to scare youngsters into abstaining, kids can feel lied to. The message rings false. I don’t want to do that.

When experimenting as a child, teen, and/or young adult, just keep these safety factors in mind, and see if you can make the decision to only drink and/or drug if you are in very safe surroundings with very safe people. If you are ever having blackouts (periods of time when you are drinking where you can’t remember what you were doing), then realize that is a prime indicator of potential alcoholism. If you have blackouts, its really best that you not drink at all.

I don’t want to come across as a prohibitionist. Although I don’t drink at all any more, and I don’t take recreational drugs anymore, I have come to realize that some people can do these things in moderation. Even some binge drinking doesn’t mean certain alcoholism. (I’m in somewhat of a minority in the AA crowd these days.)

But I also know the pain of rape, and the pain of guilt. I absolutely don’t mean to blame a victim if she was impaired by alcohol, and was then raped. The rape doesn’t come as a result of the alcohol; the blame belongs with the rapist. But, especially in cases of date rape, the lines get so fuzzy and prosecution is practically impossible. I really want women to take care of themselves, and avoid sexual assault, and refraining from the use of drugs and alcohol is a very good preventative measure.

What do you think?

Yesterday I spoke to a group of therapists at a residential treatment center for teenagers with substance abuse issues, the Phoenix House.

One of the teenagers who was doing really well in the program gave me a tour of the facilities.  She told me, among other things, that most of the people were there voluntarily, but some were court ordered.

After my presentation about adolescent sexual development, the treatment providers and I talked about sexual abuse, and it’s prevalence among their young clientele.  One treatment provider suggested that sexual abuse might be as high as 70% among teenagers who end up there.  Others thought it was probably lower - maybe 45%.  Either way, these are very high percentages.

One of the reasons there seemed to be disagreement among the staff was because they said most boys do not want to admit to sexual abuse.  One therapist suggested that sexual abuse was “take it to your grave kind of stuff.”  Another suggested boys tended to gloss over any memory of sexual abuse - say it didn’t affect them, and so decide it’s not even worth talking about.

There were many intense topics discussed in our meeting.  (There were also lots of jokes - it’s hard not to laugh at the many unintended puns when you’re talking about sex.)  But this thing about boys glossing over sexual abuse has stayed with me through the night.  I’m glad to know there are good people at the Phoenix House and other places, trying to reach these boys and help them through the pain they have experienced.  So much of sexual abuse public awareness and counseling is focused on girls - we need to be sure and not forget about the boys.

I have written about Genarlow Wilson before. He’s the young Georgia man who was sentenced to 10 years without parole for having consensual oral sex at age 17 with a 15 year old. The Wikipedia page on Wilson tells his story in its entirety. Before I enumerate and lambaste the issues in this case, I want to make very clear that I am so pleased that the Georgia Supreme Court today announced that this sentence was cruel and unusual. Wilson is expected to be released from prison today. Consensual sex between young people should not be a crime.

Nevertheless, today I am outraged.

First, there appear to be outstanding issues about Wilson’s interactions with an unconscious 17 year old girl at the same party. The same video that was used to convict Wilson for having consensual oral sex with the 15 year old shows Wilson having sexual intercourse with an unconscious 17 year old. But I talked all about that back in June.

The real issue from today is this change in the law that Wilson has benefited from. The change means that the conviction of sex between minors is no longer a felony, but is now a misdemeanor.

Outrageous! Sex between minors has no business being a crime! Teenagers have sex. It should not be a crime. Our society is so over-the-top concerned with teenagers and sex, so over-sexualizing and yet so concerned with controlling their sexual choices. I am so exhausted by all of this! What on earth business does the George Supreme Court have telling 15, 16, and 17 year olds that they can’t have sex? That’s private business.

In case you missed the first or second part in this series, we are discussing the recent NY Times article on adolescent sex offenders. This is the last post in a three-part series.

The primary focus of the law as it relates to adolescent sex offenders is how to keep potential future victims safe. This is, of course, appropriate. However, assessing whether an adolescent is likely to commit a second sexual offense is difficult because of adolescents’ rapid social, emotional, and cognitive development. However, research suggests that only about 20-25% of adolescent sex offenders commit a second sex offense. This is a much lower rate than adult sex offenders. Even fewer of these adolescents will grow-up to become rapist or pedophiles - perhaps only 10%.

Nevertheless, the laws that address adolescent sex offenders, both on a state and federal level, are becoming increasingly punitive and stringent. Researchers and experts, however, suggest that a less punitive approach produces the best possible outcomes for adolescent sex offenders. New federal legislation called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act will, among other things, mandate that over the next two years all states include adolescent sex offenders 14 years and older in community notification laws. As I alluded to on Wednesday, this means that for the first time in over 100 years, a minor’s records will be accessible to the public. The Times article says this:

The theory is that children are less responsible for their actions, and thus less blameworthy, than adults and more amenable to rehabilitation. But by publishing their photographs and addresses on the Internet, community notification suggests that juveniles with sex offenses are in a separate, distinct category from other adolescents in the juvenile justice system – more fixed in their traits and more dangerous to the public. It suggests, in other words, that they are more like adult sex offenders than they are like kids.

The that adolescent sex offenders are more like adult sex offenders than like children is directly contradicted by what we know about adolescent sex offenders. Their cognitive, emotional, and social development are on trajectories much more similar to other adolescents. Their recidivism rates are much lower. Even the way they commit the offense is quite different. Sex offenses perpetrated by adolescents tend to be committed on an impulse or a whim, while adult sex offenders are much more likely to groom specific children for some time before they commit an offense.

Sex offenders are a highly inflammatory issue. No doubt some politicians believe throwing out the term “Tough on Sex Offenders” in election year commercials will get them votes in the up coming elections. No doubt some politicians believe they are actually doing the best thing by cracking down as hard as they can on all sex offenders, regardless of age. Because, after all, the victim’s experience is the same. But the offender’s experience is not the same across age groups. And pushing everyone into one category is a severe disservice to the adolescents.

In case you missed the first part in this series, we are discussing the recent NY Times article on adolescent sex offenders. This is the second post in a three-part series.

Adolescent social, emotional, psychological, and cognitive development is quite rapid. Almost every aspect of an adolescent is, for those few years, almost always changing. This complicates matters for adolescent sex offenders particularly because the individual who commit a sex offense may be a very different person even just two years later, and may pose no threat of a repeat offense. Indeed, the recidivism rate for adolescent sex offenders is much lower than for adult sex offenders, and research suggests that only about 10% of adolescent sex offenders will become adult rapists or pedophiles. But the stigma of having committed a sexual offense does not wane as an adolescent changes.

Sexual offense, in some states and soon to be nationally, is the only offense in which a minor’s legal records are not sealed. I will discuss this legal issue in more depth on Friday, but for now it is enough to know that an adolescent sex offender’s peers and their peers’ parents can find out that an adolescent has committed a sex offense by looking through on-line registries of sexual offenders. Additionally, all potential employers for the rest of the individual’s life can find out that they committed a sexual offense as a minor.

In other words: (1) adolescents are ever changing, and are at a relatively low risk of repeat offenses and (2) sex offense records are not sealed. The implication of these two pieces of information are that there are serious hurdles for this population to re-integrate into society to the fullest extent they are capable. School mates and their parents, future employers, and just about anyone else can discover that these adolescents have committed a sex offense in on-line registries. This can severely impede adolescents’ ability to make and keep friends, jobs, or any of the relationships that form communities that support pro-social behavior.

What does all this really mean? Is it appropriate that a sexual offense that a young person commits at age 11 follows them through the rest of their lives? What about a 13-year-old? A 17-year-old? The crux of the problem is that there is not one good answer for those questions. Adolescents can develop too quickly and go in too many directions for blanket statements about how to respond to them, based either on age or offense. This statement applies more strongly to younger adolescents, because they have even more time for dramatic personal changes.

People in our society, children and adults, have the right to be protected from sex offenders. But the other side of that coin is that it is inappropriate to ostracize adolescents because of a sex offense, and regardless of their response to treatment. Indeed, this may increase the likelihood that they will not have the opportunity to become fully functioning adults.

So what we need are not arbitrary, fear-based responses to adolescent sex offenders. Rather, we need professionals who are able to sit with these young people, lead them toward appropriate self-monitoring and boundaries, and support them in building healthy relationships. These professionals need to be able to see the signs of a likely repeat-offender. But they also need to be able to see the signs of unlikely repeat-offenders. I am much more comfortable thinking about these very troubled young people being perceived and treated as unique individuals in unique situations by highly skilled professionals.

What do you think? Should adolescent sex offenders be treated differently than adult sex offenders? As I mentioned in the first post, the victim’s experience is the same. Why should the way we treat the perpetrator be different? I believe it is the nature of the adolescent that demands the difference. But I am interested in hearing other people’s perspectives.

There was an article in the New York Times Magazine on July 22nd about adolescent sex offenders. The article primarily focused on the relevant psychological/developmental issues and how they relate to recidivism rates and the changing legal landscape. I will discuss this article over three posts this week, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Today I will outline the problem, on Wednesday I will discuss the social/psychological implications, and on Friday I will discuss the legal landscape for the adolescent perpetrators. Depending on the number of comments and depth of conversation, I may add one or two more posts on the topic next week.

To give you a sense of the range of individuals included in the term “adolescent sex offender,” here are two of the more extreme examples described in the Times: (1) an 11-year-old girl who touched a 7-year-old’s penis two to three times and asked him to touch her vagina once, and (2) a 17-year-old-boy who has repeatedly made young children have intercourse with him. Now, most situations are not as clear-cut as these two. The first is probably not rape, the second absolutely is. The young girl needs instruction on appropriate boundaries, while the young man needs to be incarcerated. Most cases of adolescent sex offenders are not as clear. Most adolescent sex offenders are boys around 13- and 14-years-old, however there is substantial variation within the group.

One of the important pieces of information that needs to be known about adolescent sex offenders is that the vast majority (90% or more) will not become rapists of pedophiles, according to Mark Chaffin, an expert on the subject. The article states that research suggests that recidivism rates for adolescent sex offenders is about 10%.

It was clear that the Times reporter, Maggie Jones, had a bias towards believing adolescent sex offenders are treated too harshly, and that, at least the younger adolescents, cannot truly be held accountable for their actions. While I am not in complete disagreement with Ms. Jones, I am concerned that her bias colored what information she included. It is my goal to provide a more nuanced discussion of this issue than I believe Ms. Jones did.

I had three very strong reactions to this piece. These will be my guiding principles for discussion over the series. First, victims of a sexual offence feel the same violation of their body regardless of the offender’s age. Put a different way, discussion about adolescent sex offenders as different from adult sex offenders does not mean that the victims are any different. This point must not be overlooked or left unstated. Second, adolescents are different from adults in many ways. Adolescent sex offenders are different from adult sex offenders in many ways. A discussion of an offense as serious as sexual molestation by an adolescent or a pre-adolescent cannot take place outside of the context of the cognitive, emotional, and psychological development that is occurring across those ages. And third, while academics and clinicians seem to be gaining understanding about how to help these adolescents in the best way possible, there seems to be little guidance for parents. I am always in favor of prevention methods rather than post-offense punishment. I wonder what the warning signs of a potential adolescent sex offender may be, and how parents and society as a whole could recognize them and respond appropriately before an offense takes place?

As I mentioned in a post last week, this is a very difficult topic. Nevertheless, a conversation about adolescent sexuality it incomplete without addressing the more painful, inappropriate sexual actions taken by adolescents. I appreciate you staying with me through this conversation, and adding to it as you are comfortable and able.

I am currently working on several posts about the seedier side of sexuality. The first is about the recent article in the New York Times Magazine about adolescent sex offenders. (To be clear, these are teenagers or pre-teenagers who have engaged in sexual behavior with children who are at least two years younger than they are.) The second is about the new book Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity by Robert Jensen. After posting one or two discussions of Dr. Jensen’s book, I will post a conversation between me and Dr. Jensen here.

In the meantime, I am spending much of my time reading and thinking about these very painful issues. I am reminded that sex, for many, is something to be endured. For others, there is an obsession about sexuality, and sex becomes the focus of every waking thought. Sex is far to often tied-up with power, pain, and rape. These should be issues that adolescents are free from. Adolescents deserve the space to discover their sexuality without these unbearable forces breathing down their necks. Far too often, though, it is the teenagers who are just awakening to their sexuality who take the brunt of societal angst and anger around sex.

So I am asking for your input. How can we prepare our teenagers to stand in this social context and maintain a healthy sexuality? How can we help our teenagers respect their bodies and everyone else’s body? How can we bring about a sexual revolution?