-
That's what she seems to be saying in this interview with People magazine. When asked whether her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy has changed how she talks about sex with her other kids, she says: "I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand—even in schools—they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered.'' Which does not sound like abstinence only—and does sound completely sensible. I was also kind of surprised by the New Age Sarah who comes through in the interview when she describes Bristol as "kind of an old soul.'' So many layers, and only 12 days. ...
-
Meghan, I checked out that T-shirt sniffing study you flagged, and, well, it hardly implies a crisis for pill-users – or a pink slip for novelists.
To recap: The researchers asked women to rate the smells of T-shirts worn by different men. For each woman, they chose three men who were more genetically similar (in terms of a specific set of genes) and three men who were less similar. The genes in question were part of the major histocompatibility complex, or MHC, which plays a crucial role in immune function and is also linked to body odor (possibly because of interactions between the immune system and skin bacteria). The researchers found that when women began taking birth control pills, their smell preferences shifted somewhat toward men with more similar MHC profiles, though the difference was not huge.
Why might this matter? In the past, some research found that women tended to prefer the smell of men whose MHC makeup differed more extensively from their own. That result remains controversial, but from an evolutionary perspective, it makes for a good story. When women mate with less similar men, their kids may have more robust immune systems that can better fend off a wide range of diseases. In theory at least, that advantage may have helped to shape women’s tastes over time. As for the pill, if it were to skew preferences toward MHC similarity, women might smile on less genetically favorable partners, leading to problems in the long run. When women stop taking the pill, for instance, their tastes might shift again, resulting in “the breakdown of relationships," as one researcher speculated. Hence the maelstrom about women choosing the “wrong” men.
Strikingly, however, the current study fails to confirm the premise of that whole story. When women smelled men's T-shirts at the outset, before any of them took the pill, they showed no preference for men with more MHC difference. That is, they did not exhibit the supposed tendency that the pill supposedly disrupts. What’s more, when women taking the pill smelled the T-shirts again, they showed no preference for men with more MHC similarity. Yes, the pill-takers tended to rate the smell of MHC-similar men more favorably than they had before. But to repeat: They still didn’t prefer the similar guys overall. Despite the hype, then, this study’s findings are limited – and pretty messy.
Of course smell can play a role in romance. And the scent of MHC difference could turn out to be one factor – of many – that influences women’s choices. But really, when it comes to searing insight into longing and romantic crisis, T-shirt sniffing has nothing on Flaubert.
-
Has anyone been reading about this new U.K. study examining how the birth control pill affects women's choice of sexual partners? As one CBS headline crudely puts it, women on the pill allegedly choose "the wrong partner." That's because, as the authors of the study argue, women NOT on the pill are generally "attracted to men whose genetic makeup differs from their own" which "increases the chances for a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby," as CBS put it. But women on the pill seem to choose partners who are genetically similar to themselves. I can't quite tell how they've determined this, but it has to do with something called MHC genes, which affect immune responses, and smelling T-shirts. As CBS puts it: "In laboratory studies, women who sniff men's sweaty T-shirts find them more attractive when they come from men whose MHC genes don't match theirs. It's not that certain MHC genes smell better to women -- it's the difference that counts."
On the pill, however, this seems to change, and it has, according to a number of scientists, a lot of implications for relationships going forward, because apparently women who are with men who have similar genetic material get dissatisfed quickly and search for new sex partners. (It's not your hair, honey, or the fact that you don't do the dishes, it's your MHC genes.) But do these kind of studies really tell us very much? Are our sex and romantic lives really so genetically deterministic that we can make predictions based on smelling a man's T-shirt? (God, that would have saved a lot of novelists some trouble.) I'd love to know what some of our more scientifically trained XXFactor bloggers have to say, because the study and the conclusions being drawn raised all sorts of questions for me. It's times like these when you wish more journalists understood biology, because the pieces I've read on this story seem, in general, very crude.
-
Just a couple of questions are clouding my understanding of all this, counselor, and stuff I'd still like to know includes:
Was all this going on when you renewed your wedding vows last summer at that intimate backyard ceremony where you wrote your own vows and there was not a dry eye in the house? (The one your wife of 30 years lost weight for, because she wanted to look pretty for you and fit into her wedding dress?)
Is this why you keep losing your wedding ring?
When Elizabeth waited to tell you that she had a lump in her breast the size of a golf ball because she swore to God after Wade died she'd never give you any bad news ever again ... your way of repaying her was with the news you'd betrayed her, Cate, Wade's memory, and the babies she gladly took dangerous hormones to conceive? Got it.
Oh, and just one more: Remember all those holier-than-Bill Clinton remarks? So do I. If you think anyone in the universe believes your beyond Clinton-esque "I was standing on one foot when we did it so it doesn't count'' nonsense, or cares whether you used the L-word, or trusts for a single segundo that you're not the baby daddy? I think you're about to find out how cold it can get in summer, senator.
And as for you, Miss Hunter? Even if all your dreams one day come true, life as the second Mrs. de Winter is going to look pleasant by comparison.
P.S. post interview: So sue me—anybody know a good lawyer?—but I can't help feeling just a little bit sorry for the whole human race when I see just one more ninny who threw it all away for five minutes with an 80s coke—nope, not gonna fall into that blame-the-woman trap. I don't know why Edwards kept repeating, "This is my fault and no one else's.' (Duh.) Nerves, I guess.
The most unbelievable part of the interview was when he said his buddy Fred Baron, formerly of Baron & Budd, had been paying his former mistress $15,000 a month behind his back; dude, you can lie better than that! Baron is a big Dallas lawyer who made his $$ suing people for asbestos exposure, even when there were no damages. I was in his house once a million years ago, for a party he threw when a friend of mine married one of his law partners, and asbestos has been very good to him, even if I do recall my fellow working stiffs from the paper standing around the pool making fun of his ugly art; that's what happens when you invite a bunch of reporters into chi-chi Preston Hollow. A little while back, Baron even sued his own law firm, so the idea that this total shark would lay out 15 large a month just for grins and all on his own is the lamest load of hooey I've heard outside a campaign ad.
But—yes, Mickey, this is the moment you've been waiting for—there is also no getting around the fact that Elizabeth was flat wrong, too, after she found out about the affair, not to tell him in no uncertain terms that he would not be running in '08 after all, for the good of the party if nothing else. I'm sure they convinced themselves that what he had to offer the country was worth the risk, but it wasn't, and that is some major enabling she was involved in; the Democrats are darn lucky they got No Drama Obama instead.
Melinda Henneberger will be chatting on Washingtonpost.com about the Edwards affair at 2 p.m. today. Send her a question!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nayeli, maybe I'm just a little more cynical than you are, but I don't read the Miley Cyrus condom non-deal as a "huge loss," but rather a huge gain for both the starlet and LifeStyles. Though of course you're right that it would be wonderful if someone with the influence and reach Cyrus has among teen girls took on the issue of safe sex (and that missed opportunity, indeed, is a loss), I think the LifeStyles offer has a lot more to do with the buzz generated by even the proposal of the pairing. LifeStyles gets gratis association with the Hannah Montana brand, with all its increasingly fraught but consistently lucrative connotations. Canny Miley gets to continue her coy, stutter-step march toward sexpot-dom, chastely refusing the condom deal but grabbing some column space that portrays her not just as a cute little kid any longer.
I'm also not sure, even if Miley were to take on the issue of safe sex as her particular project, that becoming a spokeswoman for a condom company would be the best soapbox—setting aside issues of objectification and commercialization, women don't wear condoms. It's true that women shouldn't be passive about their sexual health. But why should the onus for safe sex be put only on the woman, as this kind of marketing seems to suggest—couldn't, say, Zac Efron slap that oh-so-manly mug on a condom box and encourage teenage boys to take responsibility to wear them, and not just when nagged to by a pretty girl?
-
There I was, all set to jump up in defense of those Pharmacists for Life whom Will and the Washington Post wrote about. Given how poorly they're likely to fare in the marketplace, their position struck me as both principled and doomed; how could I resist? I don't happen to agree with them, because limiting access to birth control seems so likely to lead to more abortions. But they have the right to sell only what they feel OK about selling, don't they? What's more American than that? Then, alas, I glanced at their Web site, which refers to an "abortoholic babe from NARAL'' and calls Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, "the Dictator of the Midwest, Guv 'Slobodan' Blagojevich ... the totalitarian abortoholic Serb reigning in Springfield, but who much rather prefers the shores of Lake Michigan to the boorish 'fundies' downstate as the kook left-wing radicals refer to anyone with Christian beliefs. Now, there's tolerance!'' Where? You guys are on your own. (And really, isn't that how you want it?)
-
Sometimes, the obvious is lost on me. Anne, I enjoyed your post about Cherie Blair's back-atcha memoir. But I wasn't sure what to make of what you wrote about her announcement that her fourth child was conceived at Balmoral Castle because she'd decided to leave her birth control at home: "The most obvious point to make about all of this is 'I thought she was Roman Catholic,' but I'm not going to say that."Only, you did say that. Sorry, but are you calling her out for being a poor Catholic or a hypocrite? For failing to follow all church teaching, or trying to follow any of it?
-
Were you just being provocative, Emily? Describing a best-case abortion as nothing more than "a few not ideal hours'' makes it sound like an afternoon at the DMV without a good book. And aren't you being just as categorical as you say Caitlin Flanagan is when you argue that giving a child up for adoption is definitely trickier than having an abortion? (Except when it's not?) Whether you think abortion is morally neutral, intrinsically evil, or the gray area that hijacked our whole political debate, though, here's what I wish we could agree on: There is no other-than-partisan purpose in lobbies on both sides of this issue raising huge sums that only stoke the argument, like some hideous perpetual flame. And despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it's the fight itself that keeps us from focusing on the widely agreed-upon need for birth control, birth control, for heaven's sake birth control.
That Erica Jong post on girl-written puff pieces that Dahlia mentioned made me laugh, though; first, why shouldn't we have enough confidence to cop to an interest in not only Iraq and the Darfur and the dollar, but also shoes and Carla Bruni and poor, poor Katie Holmes? (Today's shiniest news bauble: The man Princess Diana considered the love of her life has, as the Daily Mail put it, "run to fat.'' In his first-ever, "world exclusive'' interview Pakistani doctor Hasnat Khan, reveals ... lots less than the photo of him does. "I found her a very normal person. ... I think she did great work for the country. ... I always wanted to follow in the footsteps of my maternal grandfather, who was a doctor.'') If women really were the lead dogs on the newshound puff patrol, however, we'd completely dominate daily journalism at this point, because we are all style reporters now. There's no mystery about why that might be; as news outfits cut staff to boost stock—and are expected to magically do More with Less—it's way cheaper to provide commentary than reporting. And though women are still overrepresented on the boo-hoo brigades sent out to gather quotes from grieving families, I think I mostly differ with Jong on what the meaning of "puff'' is.
She complains that we delve into such "idiotic'' and trivial matters as a political candidate's marriage—but then also charges that we "never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father?'' I write a lot about political marriages, so I guess her puff pastry is my meat and potatoes. But isn't looking at a candidate's closest relationships how we find out about bomb-happy dry drunks trying to play out Oedipal wars? Not a whole lot of that sort of thing comes of just-the-facts coverage of position papers. Doubtless we can do a better job of covering the issues, even in our current pared-down state. As can any readers who feel deprived of substance.
-
Dahlia, agreed entirely. And now on to a subject that lies somewhere between the CIA and nail polish: Caitlin Flanagan's complaints about the movie Juno in the NYT over the weekend. (Did anyone else notice that the Times' Sunday op-ed pages were practially all XX Factor fodder?) Flanagan says that Juno is a "fairy tale" because, "As any woman who has ever chosen (or been forced) to kick it old school can tell you, surrendering a baby whom you will never know comes with a steep and lifelong cost. Nor is an abortion psychologically or physically simple. It is an invasive and frightening procedure."
It's not the sentiment that bugs me, exactly. Yes, adoption and abortion can be fraught. It's the categorical nature of the statement: Adoption is a lifelong burden; abortion is complicated and scary. Flanagan's argument, here and elsewhere, also boils down to this: Sex is bad for teenage girls. That's sometimes true, sure, but sometimes not—as Juliet has pointed out to us. Sometimes, teenage sex is caring and loving and, well, great. And sometimes an abortion is a few not ideal hours that give you the rest of your life back—nothing more. Check out this new book by abortion doctor Susan Wicklund and the stories she tells about her patients. Adoption is trickier, I grant Flanagan, if for no other reason than it means going through with a pregnancy. But wouldn't the world be a better place if girls could experience it the way Juno did? I'm glad the movie made me imagine a girl who has a baby, hands it over to another woman who desperately wants to raise it, and then goes back to playing guitar with her boyfriend on his front steps. It's a fairy tale with a purpose. I did have one quibble with the movie, though: I wished that Juno's parents brought up birth control in the scene in which they gently chide their daughter for getting pregnant. It was such a no-brainer, and the mother in me rued the missed opportunity.
-
I’m not sure if the bedraggled Hillary will win women’s sympathy. But it blows my minds that college students who can no longer get low-cost contraception at school aren’t getting much sympathy from Slate readers. College health centers have long gotten discount pills from drug companies, which the companies are apparently happy to provide. Restoring those discounts involves a tiny technical fix that costs taxpayers nothing. And yet, check out these comments from the Fray. From Lloyd 667:
“I am all in favor of cheap birth control. In fact, I favor universal health coverage that includes prescription drugs of all kinds. But why should college students be especially favored here?”
And from burgettk, a “female, recent college graduate”:
“…I can't think of a single female who couldn't find an RA or female friend to drive them to a Planned Parenthood, where birth control can be had for free or inexpensively. Even after price hikes, I was still able to get mine for $20/month, and I was classified as a 'higher-income' patient.
“The consequences of not being a responsible sexually active person are just too great. If my choice comes to having a new pair of shoes or not having a baby before I'm 100% ready to do so, I'll go barefoot every time.”
But wait a minute. Supporting this fix does not imply that college women aren’t resourceful or that none of them could find other options if they needed to. But why make it harder for them than it needs to be? Drug companies are willing to give the discounts. Students clearly benefit. You and I pay nothing. Unless you’re basically hostile to family planning, where’s the downside?
-
Torie, I agree that there’s no need to call the D.A.’s office on teenagers messing around, but I do think the parents of middle schoolers have a right to know the score, so to speak. I don’t what’s up in Portland, Maine, but they seem to be having trouble locating the vast expanse of middle ground between initially refusing to let the parents of 11-year-olds know they were handing them birth control – and now promising that they will report every sexually active kid to the cops.
Has anybody else seen that Disney movie where Goofy follows his son off to college because he misses him so much? That is going to be me in a few years, moving in across the street from West Point, just like Douglas MacArthur’s mommy. As a warm-up, a couple of summers ago, I had the bright idea that I would accompany my children to a camp for 9- to 18-year-olds, where I would teach a little writing class and get loads of work done.
One of the reasons that loads of work thing didn’t happen is that I had other duties at this camp, too – patrolling the rec center to bust up late-night make-out sessions, for instance. Some of the other teachers were assigned an even more onerous job, on a detail known as the Bush Patrol. (My then-9-year-old son was happy to hear that the staff was on the lookout, making sure the president was nowhere in evidence.) But no, what this assignment really involved was whizzing around the far reaches of the campus in a golf cart, armed with a whistle and flashlight, interrupting couples at play in the bushes. If you broke up anything serious, you were supposed to call the parents and report exactly what you had seen.
I swore I would never do anything of the sort, but some of my friends felt otherwise, and one said she already had made such a call -- and had even provided details when the dad on the other end of the line refused to believe her: “Sorry, sir, but your daughter’s head was moving up and down.’’
Bad as it was for this friend who had to make that call, getting it must have been many times worse. Yet still not as bad as not getting it might have been, you know? There is just too much at stake to keep parents of the loop.
-
Following the kerfuffle over birth control for the Hanna Montana set, health officials in Portland, Maine, have agreed to report “all illegal sexual activity involving minors as required by law,” according to an article from a Maine newspaper. That includes any time someone 13 or younger has sex, even if it’s consensual. What this does is basically nullify the idea of providing oral contraceptives for the middle schoolers.
But as Slate’s William Saletan has noted recently, consent laws are particularly tricky now that girls are reaching puberty earlier. Of course it’s disturbing to think of a 13, 12, or 11 year old girl having sex (whether we’re talking full-on intercourse or “fooling around” that includes other behaviors, like oral sex). But I’m even more disturbed by the decision to force health-care professionals to report consensual activity among teens. Perhaps it’s because I’m not a parent and, as a 23 year old, I vividly remember middle school, in all its oily-skinned, awkward glory. I knew girls who were having oral sex as 13-year-olds. I was fairly grossed by that idea, even at the time. But I was also relieved that at every physical, my doctor would assure me that I could talk to her in confidence about anything. There was nothing to tell—any romantic life I had at the time was strictly in the fantasy category. But it was a relief to hear it and helped me have some trust for her. If the 13-year-olds know that their doctor has to report any sexual contact, are they really going to be truthful during check-ups? Probably not. And if I’ve learned anything from watching House, M.D., it’s that being honest with your doctor is the most important thing you can do.
-
Alas, Dahlia, if you’re looking for a good argument for allowing condoms and not prescription birth control, I’m bound to disappoint. I somehow missed the info that the district has been passing out condoms for so long. At the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy (but to avoid being sexist) allow me to clarify: I’m not in favor of ANY school-sponsored birth control for 10- or 11-year-olds, for either boys or girls. Schools should not be condoning sex between middle-schoolers. Here’s a question: If a 12-year-old gets a prescription for the pill so she can have sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend, is the school contributing to statutory rape? And the flip side: If a school-provided condom breaks and a 12-year-old boy gets his girlfriend pregnant, is the school responsible? I smell lawsuit …
-
Rachael, your post on the decision of a Portland, Maine, middle school to allow students to get prescription birth control without parental notification was prescient. Everyone’s gone bonkers toady and O’Reilly is hardly even the most unhinged. (Best line from O’Reilly’s post today “It is ironic that the week my book "Cultural Warrior" comes out in paperback, intense culture battles erupt across the country.”) Imagine, Bill’s book comes out in paperback and culture battles happen in America!!!
I agree with you Rachael that there is something ick-inducing about giving birth control pill to 10-year-olds. But I am still not hearing any good argument for how this differs from handing out condoms – something the school had been doing for eight years. Is it the difference between providing birth control to girls instead of boys? Is it O’Reilly’s distinction that condoms prevent disease whereas pills prevent “only” pregnancy? Or is there something about offering someone else’s child a pill that makes the Portland scheme more intrusive?
Largely agree with Anne and Ms. Thatcher, but a quick note on yesterday’s blog criticism: It’s bizarre to me to hear that Slate is somehow better for the “Feminist Project” without a women’s blog than with it. It’s even harder to fathom how our women writers are better “feminists” if they avoid discussing women’s issues. Is this some new half-starved Beverly Hills feminism: Do everything you can to present yourself as less of a person than you actually are?
-
Soon after reading Amanda’s post on Susan Orr’s appointment to head the Office of Population Affairs—the office in the Health and Human Services Department that oversees family planning—I read that the school board in Portland, Maine, has—by an astounding (to me) 10-2 vote—decided to allow middle-students to get prescription birth control without parental notification.
Putting the two stories alongside each other demonstrates what a disheartening divide we still have on the topic of birth control, without even bringing up abortion. I might be the only person writing here who wishes abortion weren’t legal, but I’m a pragmatic pro-lifer: Birth control is a wonderful thing. Condoms, the pill, sponges—the more, the better. It’s beyond ridiculous to tell women that they shouldn’t have abortions and then oppose any means by which they can prevent pregnancy.
At least, I like to think I’m pragmatic on this issue. But when I read that people want to put 12-year-old girls on the pill and not notify parents, I’m horrified. Sure, you can throw up your hands and say, “They’re having sex anyway. Shouldn’t we do what we can?” But once you do that, where do you draw the line? Is there even a line left to draw? William Saletan had an interesting piece a few weeks ago that discussed how difficult it is to come up with an appropriate “age of consent.” One line from that piece (and I’m not trying to take Will out of context—his article dealt largely with statutory rape) seems relevant to this discussion: “Consent implies competence, and 12-year-olds don't really have that.”
I know the statistics show that offering birth control to teenagers doesn’t increase sexual activity. But so many people—parents, educators, volunteers—are working hard to help girls create build self-esteem and create the positive self-images that encourage them to say no to sex. Measures like this one seem to undercut those efforts. And isn’t one of the problems with education today that parents aren’t involved enough? By removing the parents from the equation here, you’re not doing anything to foster the strong family relationships that our children need.
(As an aside, I also find it odd that some schools have such a zero-tolerance policy for drugs that they will suspend a girl for taking a Motrin for PMS; yet in other places schools will help girls get the pill.)
After all that, I guess my question is this: Will we ever reach a middle ground, where we can agree that it’s stupid to say “abstinence rules,” yet still think it’s a pretty damn bad idea to give 12-year-olds the pill behind their parents’ back?