-
sponsorship
Tracy Quan, who is normally so sex-positive and has written extensively about her life as a call girl, has an article in the Daily Beast warning women against using withdrawal as a birth control method, even though new research has shown it to be almost as effective as condoms ... (Read more in Double X.)
-
sponsorship
17 Again, a film about a 38-year-old named Mike with a sucky life who gets to go back to being 17, when he looked like Tiger Beat pin-up Zac Efron, opens today. ("What is Zac Efron?" Manohla Dargis wonders in in today's Times. He does have a space-alien quality—those vacant, kewpie doll eyes—but he's just the newest model in an old line of cars that go fast, for a short period of time. Think David Cassidy, Kirk Cameron, The Backstreet Boys). Why does Mike's life suck? Well, he just lost a promotion and quit his job, he's getting a divorce and his kids hate him—but the more fundamental reason that his life stinks is that Mike chose to become a teen father.
See, when Mike was 17, and a star basketball player with a bright future, his pretty girlfriend informed him she was with child. He decided to do the "right thing" (as EW's Lisa Schwarzbaum says, "Levi Johnston, consider yourself schooled.") and happily married his sweetheart. But 20 years later, Mike's decision has had unpleasant consequences. Mike never went to college, so he's been overlooked time and time again for a promotion. He's also spent the last two decades bitterly resenting his wife and kids for the sacrifices he made to be with them. Sacrifices that have kept him from the life he thinks he should have, and could have, had. So Mike wishes he could be 17 again, before he gave up his future for his family.
Unsurprisingly, the film goes out of its way to neutralize this message—that teen parenthood might require enormous, painful sacrifices that don't always pay off—by having Mike "realize," thanks to his repeat performance as a 17-year-old, that his wife and kids are the most important thing in his life and he really ought to appreciate them more.
The movie is schizophrenic about teenagers, sex and responsibility in other ways as well. When Mike returns to high school and condoms are being distributed in his health class he makes an impassioned plea for abstinence. This is played for laughs—Mike's daughter is in his class, and of course he doesn't want her having sex-—but since we know Mike was having sex in high school, and obviously without condoms, it's unfathomably short sighted. Wouldn't this man, of all men, know the importance of protection? Probably, but then he'd have to advocate condom usage—and God forbid a film intended for real teenagers do anything like that.
-
sponsorship
Hanna, I think you hit the nail right on the head. Most modern moms are profoundly ambivalent about their daughters' sex lives (sons too, but we'll get to that in a second). I would find it incredibly creepy if a mother told her barely legal daughter, "I'd love it if you were sexually active!" And what about from a daughter's point of view? I didn't want my mother's approval or disapproval when I became sexually active; I didn't want her involved at all. This is something that young adults need to navigate for themselves, for the most part, but of course parents should be there for questions and problems should they arise. My own mother handled this situation well, I think, and of course it still mortified me. I was a freshman in high school and was quite far from wanting to have sex. My mom came into my room bearing a brown paper bag and said, "Your father and I don't condone you having sex in high school, but if you're going to have sex, we want you to be safe." With that she opened the paper bag and left me with a pack of condoms. The message was certainly mixed; but it didn't sway me towards continued virginity or desire to lose it. All it made me want to do was bury my head in my pillows and die.
Emily, I wonder if mothers' attitude to their sons' sex lives is the other side of the Tami reaction: they worry, not just about their sons getting hurt, but also (assuming their sons are heterosexual) about their sons being insensitive towards their girlfriends. They remember all the jerks they dated and pray that they have not spawned a scumbag. Would any mothers of sons care to weigh in?
-
sponsorship
I have some convincing theories about the rise of teen pregnancy and AIDS cases, Hanna! Let's start with the increased percentage of pregnant adolescents. In an article that "XX Factor" friend Margaret Talbot wrote for The New Yorker last year called "Red Sex, Blue Sex" she quotes sociologist Mark Regnerus on teens who delay sexual activity:
They are interested in remaining free from the burden of teenage pregnancy and the sorrows and embarrassments of sexually transmitted diseases. They perceive a bright future for themselves, one with college, advanced degrees, a career, and a family. Simply put, too much seems at stake. Sexual intercourse is not worth the risks.
Hanna, you note that the Latino population has seen a particularly notable spike in teen pregnancy, and that doesn't surprise me. As an article in Sunday's New York Times about the education of nonnative English speakers showed, there are near-impossible barriers for recent immigrants that prevent them from the "bright futures" Regnerus speaks of. The Times article quotes a 19-year-old Guatemalan woman named Amalia Raymundo, who "was a rising star in her remote village in Guatemala, the region’s beauty queen and a candidate for college scholarships." Because of her experiences in American public school, Amalia saw that her dreams of becoming a doctor were so far out of her reach, she thought about dropping out. “If I am going to end up cleaning houses with my mother ... why go to high school?”
If that's the reality for most recent immigrant women, why would they delay sex or prevent pregnancy? What's the motivation? Which brings me to my next point: I think AIDS is on the rise because condom promotion has all but disappeared and AIDS is no longer seen as a death sentence. If you don't believe you're going to die, and many think sex feels better without a condom, what's the motivation for use? In addition, as Talbot wrote in her New Yorker article, "many evangelicals are steeped in the abstinence movement’s warnings that condoms won’t actually protect them from pregnancy or venereal disease." So you have informed people who choose to take the risk because they think AIDS won't happen to them, and you have underinformed people who think that condoms don't work. Those taken together seem like enough to cause a statistical increase.
-
sponsorship
According to an article published in the London Times today, we Brits are now the most promiscuous nation in the world (of the western industrial nations, that is). In terms of one-night stands, total number of partners, and our "relaxed" attitude to casual sex, we beat Australia, the United States, Italy, and France. France! Where having extra-marital affairs is a favorite national pastime! If nothing else, at least now we might lose our reputation for being frigid and repressed.
In all seriousness though, Britain has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe as well as the highest teen STD infection rate in Europe (although both are significantly lower than here in the United States, where abstinence-only sex education doesn't seem to be helping much). Premature sex education in British schools (it can be taught to children as young as 4) has long been blamed for the epidemic, along with the inappropriate sexualization of children by toy manufacturers and the media. But here's a thought. In Britain, we also drink more than any other country in Europe (apart from Ireland and Finland, bizarrely), and our alcohol-related death rate has doubled since 1991. We've also, according to this reasonably insulting story in the New York Times, been causing havoc on summer vacations with our abhorrent, booze-soaked behavior. Could there be a correlation somewhere between the beer goggles and the newfound sluttiness?
-
sponsorship
Nayeli,
I respect that you're standing by your opinion that Miley Cyrus would be a good condom spokesgirl, but I think there are even more reasons it's a terrible idea.
Your concerns—that teens are having sex and need contraception—are well-founded and admirable. But teen sex is not a new thing. We Gen-Xers didn't wait until college or marriage, and neither did our baby boomer parents. (Believe me; I'm living proof of what happens when teenagers don't use birth control.) I'm pretty sure it goes back to at least Romeo and Juliet. There's never been a perfect system for teaching horny young things about safe sex, and there probably never will be. We can all work harder to improve access to contraception and education, but fresh ideas should come from health professionals, family counselors, and educators, not the marketing department at a condom company. I also like Meghan's suggestion the Cyrus herself could volunteer or donate to a sex-ed program if she's so inclined.
You ask why, since the mere mention of an endorsement has been win-win for LifeStyles and Cyrus, why not, um, consummate the deal? Because an actual deal would be lose-lose. Miley Cyrus reportedly could be worth $1 billion—yes, with a "b"—by the end of the year. She's not going to risk her squeaky clean reputation for a mere $1 million. And can you imagine the uproar that LifeStyles would face for using a minor to sell their products? James Dobson would be getting more airtime than Hannah Montana herself.
And finally, the ick factor can't be ignored. Yes, it's important for teens to use condoms. But the fact is that they're important for adults, too. Any grown man who didn't breathlessly await the day the Olsen twins turned 18 will or should be skeeved out by the idea of buying a box of condoms with jailbait on the side. Condom companies can find a way to promote condom use without using a teenager. In fact—and yes, I realize it makes me sound very old to say this—what's wrong with a little cautionary tale? If we must have a pop tart selling condoms, why not Britney Spears?
-
sponsorship
I'm prepared to take the heat for my controversial opinion that the appearance of Miley Cyrus' cherubic face on the side of a package of condoms would be a positive development and significantly raise the profile of contraception among teens. It's easy to see though why some, if not most of participants in this debate don't see her as the right girl for the job. I still do, for exactly the same reasons that the endorsement seems taboo:
She doesn't have to do it. You're right, Rachael. Miley Cyrus has no obligation to get behind the LifeStyles campaign. I just think that her "do as I say, not as I do" demeanor has been frustrating to watch, especially when so many look to her as a role model. And as I said, I'm not advocating that she break her own vow of chastity. But if she, as a teenager, is going to display her sexuality on a public stage she might as well focus on a positive, as opposed to a hypocritical message while she's at it. I don't think Miley is obligated to provide sex ed to a million young girls, I just think it would be progressive, inspiring, and much more honest if she did.
She's a girl. I've got to protest the suggestion that the role of condom spokesperson be outsourced to Miley's male equivalent. Condoms are worn by men, yes, but their benefits are often much more tangible to women. Females are both more susceptible to infection and slower to exhibit the symptoms that allow for the detection and treatment of many STDs. Many of the most serious problems for women are the result of undetected chlamydia and gonorrheal infections. Ectopic pregnancy, infertility, cervical cancer—these problems are admittedly not those of a pre-teen. Rather they're the problems of an ill-educated preteen who had unprotected sex and didn't suffer the consequences until 20 years down the line.
Beyond these health reasons, however, there's a cultural standard that's begging to be overturned by Cyrus' endorsement. Before Trojan's 2007 "Evolve" campaign, most U.S. condom advertisements not only perpetuated a male-centric model for sex, they were also frequently misogynistic and occasionally violent in the messages they portrayed. Isn't it about time that an intelligent young woman replaced the machismo that dominates the market today?
She's (too) young. According to a Durex Global Sex Survey in 2007 the age at which virginity is lost in developed nations varies between 15 and 19. In the United States, it's 16. And this is the age at which people first have sex, not the first time they think about sex or are exposed to it. Of course, every parent has the right to breach the topic of sex and contraception when they feel that the time is right. But in reality, relying solely on parental and/or scholastic guidance hasn't really been working. Miley's peers are already having sex. Girls younger than Miley are already having sex. By the time they're watching Gossip Girl, it's probably too late. In my opinion kids, specifically girls, should know about contraception long before they know everything there is to know about sex, something I think every parent would like to control but ultimately cannot. Kids learn about sex from other kids. And unfortunately, when they get the message about safe sex from their parents (if they get the message about safe sex from their parents, and the most at-risk teens usually don't) it often comes after they've already become curious or nervous about the subject or received conflicting accounts from their equally uninformed friends.
It's a total sellout. It's undeniable that both Miley and LifeStyles have already gained by the mere hint of their association. Considering the minute possibility that Cyrus would ever get behind their product, this may be all that LifeStyles was hoping to accomplish in the first place. I don't think it's necessarily exploitive for LifeStyles to target Cyrus with their offer—they're looking to make a big impact among teens and she's one of the most visible celebrities in any demographic. For all we know, this was an insider deal and the Cyruses wanted the offer to be extended just so they could shoot it and any rumors of her waning abstinence down. So, if the damage has already been sort-of caused and both sides have already come out ahead—what's the big problem with finishing the deal?
Whether you think it's exploitive or a setup or just plain inappropriate the fact of the matter is that updating the way teens and young girls learn about sex is no easy job but someone's got to do it. Miley Cyrus has this chance. And whether it's Miley or some other courageous young celebrity who ultimately takes up the cause of teen sex in earnest, it's not as if everything will suddenly be changed. But this would be a pretty good start.
-
sponsorship
Nayeli,
In regards to LifeStyles offering Miley Cyrus a condom-endorsement deal (talk about a dead-on-arrival proposal), Noreen and Torie made a lot of the points I was going to make, so I won't be redundant. (Except to say I can totally imagine an 8-year-old running up to me, waving a box of Miley condoms, and asking if she could have them. Parents have a responsibility to teach their kids about sex, but they have the right to determine the time and place of that conversation. The pharmacy aisle at Target would not top my list.)
But I'd like to focus on your point about "denying contraceptive education to teens." Cyrus' refusal to take $1 million to endorse a commercial product is not denying anyone an education on birth control. Suggesting as much puts a burden on Cyrus that not only did she not ask for but that runs counter to her abstinence pledge (and so far, she deserves the benefit of the doubt on the authenticity of that pledge). It's the jobs of parents and, in this day and age, schools to teach kids about contraception.
-
sponsorship
Nayeli, I think it's pretty clear what Miley Cyrus is afraid of (though the better question might be, "What are Miley Cyrus' handlers afraid of?"). She might want to escape Disney's clutches, but becoming the underage spokesteen for a condom company seems like an easy no. She's a Christian who advocates waiting till marriage, so promoting condoms might make her seem hypocritical. (I'd like to forget I ever saw those much-blogged "sexy" photos allegedly taken from her iPhone—thanks, Perez Hilton.) More importantly, she isn't exactly marketed to her teenage contemporaries. Middle- and high-school shows on Disney, Nick, etc., are aimed at elementary students, not teenagers. They aren't accurate depictions of adolescent life—they're an idealized, sanitized world in which you get punished the first time you make a mistake like cheating, lying to your parents, or drinking. They're morality shows. I was a Saved by the Bell fan as a kid and still love looking back at those shows for the unrealistic way they portrayed high school. People "went steady" and exchanged friendship rings. School dances had punch; prom had a hoedown theme and was held in the gym. And certainly no one had sex. Safe sex is a message that needs to be out there, but someone who actually appeals to teenagers, not the prepubescent, should be making the pitch. I'd like to propose an alternative celeb, but I'm pretty out of touch with who's hip these days. Maybe the cast of Gossip Girl?
Like Noreen (who I think very astutely diagnosed LifeStyle's motivation for the offer—and there's something so exploitative about the company publicly salivating over using a tween star to sell contraceptives), I would be discomfited if I saw 15-year-old Miley Cyrus' just-recently-orthodontiaed grin slapped on a condom box in the "family planning" (what a laughable euphemism that is) section in the grocery store aisle. I can just imagine a 6-year-old walking past the department grabbing the box and saying, "Mommy, can I get this?" That might make me sound prudish, but so be it.
-
sponsorship
Hot on the heels of last week's contraceptive debate comes a fresh piece of news that is bound to stir the pot among condom fans and haters alike: Condom manufacturer LifeStyles is courting Miley Cyrus, Hannah Montana star and one-time Vanity Fair pinup, to be its new spokesgirl. Cyrus seems an unlikely candidate. At 15 she is younger than the age of consent in most states and once infamously (and unoriginally) proclaimed her intention to stay a virgin until marriage. Fearing for the already doomed reputation of the Hannah Montana brand's flagship starlet, the Cyrus camp has already denied that any deal with LifeStyles is in the works, and it's pretty much certain that they wouldn't accept it anyway. Despite LifeStyles' offering of $1 million and a lifetime supply of prophylactics to secure Cyrus as the face of safe sex, we're probably never going to see Billy Ray's baby on the side of a box of condoms.
This, to me, seems like a huge loss. Not only for Cyrus (lifetime supply!) but also for young girls who look to her as a trendsetter for both clothes and behavior. Modes of sexual practice seem to follow a trickle-down pattern, with women passing on their wisdom and advice to those less in-the-know. Miley Cyrus, role model to millions, is therefore in an ideal position to promote a healthier example for young women who are probably already contemplating or having some form of sex. Her celebrity endorsement could be the first since that of Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes to significantly de-stigmatize condoms among teens and reverse some of the bad PR they've been receiving lately.
As we've seen, teen celebrities' vows of virginity are hardly guaranteed to stave off unplanned pregnancies, nor have they proven inspirational among their peers. And it's unsurprising that the threat of pregnancy and STDs doesn't stop teens from having sex altogether when it doesn't even stop grown Jezebels who should know better.
So what are Miley's people afraid of? That she's too young to know about condoms? I see denying contraceptive education to teens as akin to preventing alcoholics from entering rehab just because they're too young to legally drink: blind adherence to an ideology that's being flouted at large. Do they fear for her future earning power? It's unlikely that Cyrus' endorsement of LifeStyles would derail her seemingly unflappable star. Her career would continue, albeit probably not with Disney, which has reacted less than happily to displays of sexuality by its young stars in the past. And what's more, Cyrus would be free to keep her promise of premarital chastity (though that, too, seems doubtful). Cyrus' promotion of safe sex needn't be a promotion of licentiousness. It should simply prompt young women to be more scrupulous and pragmatic about the choices they make, encouraging longer, healthier lives among those who've already made up their minds to have sex.
Read more on Miley Cyrus and condoms from XX Factor contributors Noreen Malone, Torie Bosch, and Rachael Larimore.
-
sponsorship
Your Friday firestorm watch: After NPR (NPR!) published an audio essay titled "Sex Without Condoms Is The New Engagement Ring" (which prompted a heated debate) Moe Tkacik of Jezebel responded with a wistful ode to the joys of barebacking. "[H]ere is the irrefutable," she writes: "it feels awesome." The biggest downside, as Moe sees it, is the increased likelihood that you'll have to have some very awkward conversations with your future partners.
The post has generated a lot of comments, both on and off Jezebel, ranging from people who agree with Moe to those who find her sentiment to be glib at best, flagrantly irresponsible at worst. Moe—who’s about to leave Jezebel for Gawker—seemed to take all the hubbub as one big don’t-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out, and a few hours later posted a bitter, rambling non-apology.
Ignoring her ill-advised detour into STD statistics (the apparent point being: Lighten up, ladies. Chances are you’re white, which means you probably don’t have AIDS!), she touches on some issues that we’ve been mulling over here on "XX Factor," particularly with regards to Jezebel—namely, what’s the line between honesty and indulgent oversharing? Can you still be a feminist if you sometimes have very un-PC desires and opinions? Should young female public figures try to comport themselves with more decorum and propriety, or is that a condescending point of view?
In this case, at least, I’m more offended as an editor than as a feminist—Moe’s second post, in particular, flirts with incomprehensibility. As far as the charges of irresponsibility go, I’m tempted to say: Meh. Frankly, if you’re going to take sex-ed advice from a Web site whose best writer goes by the moniker “Slut Machine,” well, you have bigger problems to deal with. I’m mostly disappointed that the NPR story’s initial thesis—that deciding to go mano-a-mano with your partner can be considered a serious expression of commitment, especially when skyrocketing divorce rates mean that a marriage certificate isn’t the signifier it once was—got lost in the shuffle. That idea has a kernel of weird, gross, uncomfortable truth about it. I'm a big fan of Jezebel’s dedication to airing “Id-level truths,” as Moe put it in her second post. Sometimes I just wish they let their ego do a bit of cleaning—not for decorum’s sake, but for clarity’s.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?