There are a great many things I could blog about this morning, my own pre-election anxiety not least among them. I’m grateful that I’m leaving town (actually, the country) from tomorrow afternoon until late Sunday night — and that will give me a break from incessant poll-checking. Yesterday, I visited RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight and the DailyKos at least a dozen times each. I met with Stephanie, my Pilates trainer, this morning at 6:00. Though I normally do a private session with her three times a week, because of my travel schedule I won’t see her until next Wednesday morning — the day after the election. “We won’t see each other until after the election”, I blurted on my way out the door. “Oh God”, Stephanie replied, “I know. Let’s hope we’re both giddily happy at this time a week from now.” “Amen, sister”, I replied.
I will have more posts up about porn soon, but I am always reluctant to post too often about the same issue. I have a diverse group of readers, fortunately, and want to do my best to cover as many bases as possible. Two important voices for sex workers rights and for a “pro-porn” position, Amber Rhea and Renegade Evolution, have thoughtful responses to my recent posts. (Ren’s site may not be work-safe for all.) I’m glad respectful dialogue can happen.
I’m thinking about something else sex-related this morning. In the past month, three of the students I mentor (two women, one man) have come to me reporting pregnancy scares. They are all between 18-21, and each is in a committed relationship, though not with one another. In the case of the lad and one of the gals, the tests came back negative; in the case of the second young woman, she’s planning on taking a pregnancy test later today. (In case you’re wondering, yes, I do have a solid number of students of both sexes whom I mentor — and some of those students choose to seek me out for advice about their private as well as their intellectual lives. In cases where professional counseling is needed, my motto is “affirm and refer”, but in most instances, what these students need is a safe and reliable ear. Given that I teach so many courses on gender and sexuality, it makes sense that some students would seek me out for direction and counsel. I see it as part of my job, remembering that in my college days, I had a few professors from whom I sought personal as well as professional advice.)
I’m familiar with pregnancy scares. Heck, I’m familiar with unintended pregnancies, both in my own life as an adolescent and in my work as a teacher and youth leader. I have helped arrange (and in a couple of instances, helped pay for) abortions, and helped facilitate one adoption. I have been to two weddings of former students who got married as a result of a pregnancy. I’m honored to be trusted by as many young people as I am, and I hope to continue to be worthy of that trust.
But I’ve been thinking more about why so many young people I know choose not to use contraception. The gal who came to see me yesterday had been on the Nuvaring, but her insurance coverage lapsed, and she couldn’t get the scrip refilled. She and her beau had condoms available, but chose not to use them. “I don’t know why we’re so stupid”, she said to me yesterday. The young man I work with who came to me last week, worried his girlfriend might be pregnant, also reported that “condoms were available” at the key moment, but “we went ahead without them anyway.” I wasn’t shocked. When I got my high school girlfriend pregnant, we had condoms nearby as well. I didn’t like wearing them, and my girlfriend said she hated the way they felt. So we used them “some of the time”. And predictably, a pregnancy resulted.
The $64,000 question is: “Why?” Why do bright, educated young people who are very clear about how exactly babies are made choose to have unprotected heterosexual intercourse so very often? Why, on many occasions, do they find such flimsy excuses for not using contraception, even when contraceptive devices are easily available? In some cases, of course, lack of affordability is an issue — condoms aren’t as cheap as some folks think, and other forms of prescription contraception have grown much more expensive in recent years. In other cases, one partner (almost always the male) will nag the other about how “uncomfortable” condoms are. But in plenty of cases, these young people have access to reliable methods of birth control, and choose not to use them. Ignorance is not an all-encompassing explanation, and neither is expense. Something else is at play.
The very same month I got my girlfriend pregnant, my high school English class was assigned Shakespeare’s Macbeth. I remember that my girlfriend and I had that fateful unprotected intercourse on a Sunday afternoon; earlier in the day, I had finished a paper on the play. Like most students, I memorized a few lines (and there are many wonderful lines in this tragedy.) But while some of my classmates fell in love with the “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” soliloquy, the line that grabbed me in 1985 and still grabs me:
But here, on this bank and shoal of time. we’d jumped the life to come.
Even though the verb reads in the past tense, it’s uttered by Macbeth before he has murdered his lord. These are the words of a man thinking through the consequences of what has not yet been done, and realizing he’s risking everything (in this case, his soul.) And I remember, on that afternoon in the spring of 1985, not long before I would turn 18, that that line came into my head as my girlfriend and I made love without any protection. We hadn’t seen each other in a week, she and I — she went to a different high school, and had been away on a retreat. Five months into our relationship, we’d been quarreling a lot in recent weeks. We tumbled into bed that afternoon filled with that potent cocktail of horniness and romantic anxiety, longing as much for reassurance as for orgasm. We had had sex without contraception once or twice before, but this time felt different.
I’m not normally given to premonitions, but I knew intuitively that this was a particularly “unsafe” time to be having sex without a condom. And I remember thinking that I simply didn’t care. The lines from Macbeth flashed through my mind, and I remember changing the verb to the present tense: “on this bank and shoal of time, we jump the life to come.” It seemed desperately romantic (remember, I was 17). As awful and as risky as what Macbeth and his wife were doing, they were doing it together, as a couple, bonding themselves together in their mutual sin. And as my girlfriend and I wrapped ourselves around each other, unable to get enough of one another, I remember thinking “I’m willing to risk everything for this — and the life I’m willing to jump is my own, my future.” Like so many young people in this same situation, I was briefly intoxicated with thoughts of a life together with a baby. My gal and I would always be together, would be unable to part, if we made a child together, or so I believed. And driven by these romantic visions, driven by anxiety, and driven by a longing for fusion with this, my first real love, I came inside my girlfriend.
I remember that afterwards, as we lay together, my girlfriend said to me “We shouldn’t have done that, but I’m glad we did.” I nodded solemnly, feeling the anxiety in me grow by the second. “I feel so close to you, nothing between us”, she said, and held me tighter. I held her back, noting that though my panic was rising, so too was an enormous sense of calm — as long as she and I were together like this, we could take on the whole world. We could stand on that bank and shoal of time and jump — over everything. We were a team, indivisible and fused for ever. It was a happy feeling. Less than two months later, she had the abortion while I sat grimly in the waiting room of a doctor’s office.
In my experience as a mentor and youth leader, a great many young people have unprotected sex for the exact same reason my gal and I did so many years ago. They may or may not quote Shakespeare to themselves as they approach climax, but their reasoning (or lack thereof) is frequently the same. Unprotected sex seems to happen more often in committed relationships than in casual hookups, at least based on the anecdotes I hear from the young men and women with whom I work. That seems counter-intuitive at first. But we often forget that for some young people, the use of contraception not only symbolizes caution, it can come to symbolize a lack of complete and utter trust. Condoms, still the least expensive and most reliable form of over-the-counter contraception, are both literal and metaphorical barriers.
For the young and romantically inclined, floating along on anxiety and horniness and oxcytocin, the condom is a decidedly unromantic reminder of reality, of obligations, of future plans. And so, otherwise bright young people say to each other (or perhaps only to themselves), “If we really love each other, we’ll be okay no matter what.” Part of them may even long for a child, a new creature whose very flesh is made up of the mixed DNA of the self and the beloved other. Faced with all of that emotionally charged imagery, filled with sexual arousal and a longing for still-greater intimacy, it’s all too easy for otherwise sensible, well-informed young folks to “jump” — if not the life to come, at least a whole set of plans and possibilities.
My conservative friends suggest that this constitutes an excellent argument for avoiding pre-marital sex altogether, and avoiding artificial contraception after marriage too. My friend Bethany Torode wrote a book several years ago with her husband Sam: Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception. It was a very romantic book by a young married pair. The two have since repudiated some of their anti-contraception stances, it should be noted, but the appeal of the title, “open embrace”, goes a long way towards explaining what young folks find so damned appealing about sex without protection.
The answer, however, is not to teach abstinence until marriage and Natural Family Planning afterwards. The last thing we need is more insistence that all sexuality is inherently reproductive. But what we do need to do is do a better job of having open dialogue with young people about sex. Not just when to do it, not just how to do it safely, but how to understand what sex means for them. Cheap and widely available contraception is a must, to be sure. But so too is honest discussion about the romantic myths we attach to sex, particularly to intercourse: myths about fusion, myths about commitment, myths about what it means to have sex without barriers. The young are frequently prone to sentimental and hormonal impulsiveness, and condoms alone are insufficient prophylaxes against that desire to “jump” with a lover over all the petty restrictions imposed by common sense.
The sex education we need is about more than “protection.” It’s about more than providing access to abortion as a last resort, thought that remains an important component of justice-centered sex ed. Proper education will center on what sex means and what it doesn’t. And we can start by gently, firmly, and lovingly tearing down the myth that unprotected heterosexual intercourse represents the most intimate and magical expression of trust and love. Until we deconstruct that lie, we only tempt the unprepared to jump too quickly the lives they have to come.
Two questions – where does the lie come from? And what other expressions of trust and love do you suggest teaching as replacements? (Not sure if “replacement” is the right word I’m reaching for, but hopefully you catch my meaning)
I’ve always thought that the media – especially media aimed at women, such as “chick flicks” – do a lot of damage to our conceptions of romance and how romantic partnerships work, but I can’t pinpoint anything I’ve watched that would specifically build the myth you’re discussing.
Two excellent questions, both needing a post of their own in reply. The lie comes from the culture — the media, of course, but also “peer wisdom.” More on that later.
And de-centering intercourse is a vital challenge. More on that too.
Interestingly, in the lesbian and gay community (where contraceptives, obviously, are not needed), there was a much greater acceptance of barrier methods to prevent STDs. And by “acceptance” I mean that things like gloves and condoms were incorporated into sex – they became as normal a part of sex as taking off your clothes. (Lesbians joke about going to the OB/gyn and having her put the rubber gloves on before an exam.)
I found this a huge contrast when I was dating people not in the LGBT community, where contraception was seen as something entirely separate from and anathema to sex; condoms weren’t the exciting “Here it comes” part of sex, they were an irritating roadblock.
For me condoms always have been the exciting “here it comes” part of sex – I have a hunch that this is true not only in the LGBT community but in the sex-positive community (of which the LGBT community makes up a large part).
Hugo,
In the interests of factual accuracy, it should be pointed out that Natural Family Planning, when used correctly, can be an almost perfectly effective way of avoiding pregnancy. In the year 2000, about 60% of Polish women used some type of natural family planning as their method of birth control, and Poland had a birth rate of below the replacement level. When I lived in Africa I occasionally gave presentations on family planning and was careful to talk about NFP as well as hormonal birth control methods.
While I have no moral problem with hormonal methods like the Pill, and wholeheartedly encourage their use, I am not entirely morally comfortable with condoms. It seems to be that they detract from the “one flesh” and self-giving aspects of a properly ordered sexuality, and deform the sex act. This isn’t to say that I would tell anyone else not to use them, but I would counsel to you to think about whether you really want to change the nature of the sex act in that way; I would personally choose not to use them, but that decision is up to you.
Hector, isn’t that precisely the myth that Hugo is rejecting in his post?
Hugo, I look forward to your further posts on my questions. As I reflected about this today, I thought of two relationships I had where the man expressed the thoughts your post covers. Now, whether that was their honest viewpoint (they were close boyfriends, not casual partners, and so that’s more likely) or whether it was code for “I don’t want to put one on because it doesn’t feel as good and I can’t ejaculate” (which I heard from a few of the more casual ones), I don’t know, but it’s an interesting angle that I haven’t really analyzed before.
Mythago’s post relates to something that itched at me earlier – the whole pure-emotions-trust-and-love-without-condoms thing leaves you completely unprotected against STDs. However pure and magical unprotected sex might be, herpes sure isn’t. And while a couple may decide to handle an unplanned pregnancy that springs out of these encounters by aborting or through adoption, some STDs are with you for life.
B,
The best way to prevent STDs is by knowing your partner well enough to have a full understanding of their medical history. That rules out sex with ‘casual’ partners of course, but you shouldn’t be doing that anyway.
Taking the Pill changes the nature of intercourse, unless you believe that hormones do nothing to a woman’s body except stop her from getting pregnant.
the most intimate and magical expression of trust and love
In my experience, the act of falling asleep with someone, bare skin on bare skin, head pillowed in the hollow of shoulder…just gently dosing off, no need to kiss or talk or move because both of you are home, can be evidence of deeper trust than making love. Asleep is more vunerable than naked.
That rules out sex with ‘casual’ partners of course, but you shouldn’t be doing that anyway.
Oy.
“That rules out sex with ‘casual’ partners of course, but you shouldn’t be doing that anyway.”
Oy, you can know a partner very well and still face infidelity at some point in a LTR.
The best way to prevent STI is frequent testing, communication, and proper use of prevention methods (i.e. condoms, etc). “Knowing” your partner means nothing without getting tested in this day and age.
While I agree that the myth of ‘closeness and trust = no barriers in sex’ has a dangerous hold on many of our imaginations, I know that my 2 experiences with (consensual) unprotected sex were due to pure hedonism, and what I now call my inability to make decisions while naked. In the moment, I was remembering the rhythm method and decided that I’d be okay with the risk at that particular time in my cycle, because I wanted to avoid the discomfort of condoms. When I ‘came to’, I realized that I was absolutely NOT ok with that level of risk, no matter how small, and I thanked my lucky stars that Plan B was available. I love my IUD because it avoids the pitfalls of forgetting protection, and removes any temptation to add the frisson of danger and uncertainty to the mix.
I think there’s another thing at work here, what I would term “magical thinking.” That’s the idea that it won’t matter “just this one time,” that somehow we have control over whether or not we get pregnant by just thinking it away.
And interestingly enough I don’t see this thinking just in adolescents, I see it in middle aged adults who really should know better.
Mythago,
The pill doesn’t change the fundamental nature of intercourse any more than, say, the natural hormonal changes associated with lactation. Many hunter-gatherer tribes traditionally nursed their babies till fairly late in infancy, in order to suppress fertility. There are many natural plant compounds that suppress fertility in much the same way as the Pill, while there is no natural equivalent to a condom. If it wasn’t ‘unnatural’ for them, then it isn’t unnatural for us. In either case, while the woman’s fertility is reduced, the fundamental mechanics of the coitive act are not much changed.
It’s different with a condom which literally place a barrier between the man and woman. It detracts from the understanding that in a healthy sexuality, the partners become ‘one flesh’. Of course there’s a risk involved, but I don’t think that for me personally, that justifies doing what my conscience tells me is against the natural order. And yes, Amber Rhea, in either a Christian or a Platonic natural-reason understanding, you are not intended to be having casual sexual congress.
Not to mention the fact that someone might know their partner well enough to KNOW that their partner has an STI (given how common Herpes and HPV are) and still not want to get infected.
So you can never have a magically intimate act with a person with an STI if you’re not willing to expose yourself to the STI? Please.
I was thinking that, too, Emily. Hector’s statement is so full of assumptions and shaming that it’s ridiculous, and is completely counterproductive to actually discussing the issues in this blog post.
“There are many natural plant compounds that suppress fertility in much the same way as the Pill, while there is no natural equivalent to a condom. If it wasn’t ‘unnatural’ for them, then it isn’t unnatural for us.”
The last time I checked, lambskin, sheep’s bladders, etc. were “natural” and have been used since at least the 18th century. Sea sponges, lemon halves, etc–also “natural” and used as barrier contraceptives at one time or another.
People have been “placing barriers” between themselves for quite a long time. We’re human. We use tools. Living in a freaking house is not “natural” either.
Hugo’s point about “jump[ing] the life to come” is resonating for me today. I’m at a point in my life with my partner where, even though it really is the right thing (for both our relationship and our careers) to wait a couple more years before trying to conceive, I’m a little sad every time my period starts. I know I want to have a family with this man – why are we still waiting? The jump from half-hoping for a contraceptive failure to romantically deciding to set the contraception aside altogether (and “see what happens”) doesn’t seem very big.
Yes, it actually does. Women on the Pill don’t lactate. I’m dying to hear what these “natural plant compounds” are, and I’m sure Big Pharma would be interested, too, if they exist outside of novels like Clan of the Cave Bear. You may be thinking of herbal abortifacients that work by poisoning the mother in doses that are high enough to kill the fetus while allowing her (usually) to survive. And the Pill is a manufactured set of chemical compounds – hardly “natural”. Our foremothers did not swallow a bolus of sheep hormones for contraception.
The idea that a man and woman are not “one flesh” in the act of intercourse because there are a few milimeters’ thickness of latex around the man’s penis is nonsense. I don’t mean to be snide, but I wonder if you’ve had sex if you really think that the only intimate part of the act is the fleshy contact between penis and vaginal wall.
Hugo: “The answer, however, is not to teach abstinence until marriage and Natural Family Planning afterwards. The last thing we need is more insistence that all sexuality is inherently reproductive.”
NFP users point out that sex is both procreative and recreative, and that the two shouldn’t be separated. But that doesn’t mean that NFP users are only having sex when they’re trying to have a baby. If used properly, NFP has a 99% effectiveness rate, equal to or better than those of artificial methods.
Hector: “The best way to prevent STDs is by knowing your partner well enough to have a full understanding of their medical history. That rules out sex with ‘casual’ partners of course, but you shouldn’t be doing that anyway.”
That makes sense, Hector, though I correctly predicted when I read it that you’d face some resistance to that message.
Froth: “In my experience, the act of falling asleep with someone, bare skin on bare skin, head pillowed in the hollow of shoulder…just gently dosing off, no need to kiss or talk or move because both of you are home, can be evidence of deeper trust than making love. Asleep is more vunerable than naked.”
^ Nomination for beautiful post of the month. ^
Alice: “In the moment, I was remembering the rhythm method and decided that I’d be okay with the risk at that particular time in my cycle, because I wanted to avoid the discomfort of condoms.”
Your other experiences aside, I’d ask if you have taken in the differences between the “rhythm method” and Natural Family Planning. They are vast.
One time, someone asked if a hot bath is an effective prophylactic. The answer was, “Yes, especially if one of you stays in it all night while the other person is watching television.”
Natural Family Planning is a great method for some people, and a lousy method for other people. I’ve done the charting myself, and what I’ve found is that my sex drive is strongest on exactly the days when I’m supposed to be abstaining, if I were using this as a method of birth control. Which is OK for me, since I was doing the charts in hopes of being able to have kids, but I could imagine being frustrating for some people. I certainly don’t think it should be dismissed as an option – it has some definite advantages – but individual mileage really varies here.
Hugo said “The $64,000 question is: “Why?†Why do bright, educated young people who are very clear about how exactly babies are made choose to have unprotected heterosexual intercourse so very often?”
Let me offer an answer from an economist’s viewpoint–the expected benefit of unprotected sex exceeds the expected cost of unwanted pregnancy.
Your post elaborates on the more esoteric “expected benefits” of excitement, intimacy, etc. These vary by couple, but the desire to have unprotected sex as a new experience with the perceived additional intimacy, physical feelings, emotions, etc. is perceived as something desirable, or an expected benefit.
The expected cost is the likelihood of pregnancy (which many may underestimate) times the cost of the pregnancy. If abortion is readily available then the expected cost in the first trimester is $300 – $600 (according to Women’s Health Information website… http://www.fwhc.org/qa/ab-cost2.html) So, taking the median cost of $450 times the estimated likelihood of pregnancy between a couple (let’s say 10% in their youthful, hormonally drunken minds), the expected dollar cost of an unexpected pregnancy is about $45. One could of course add in the trauma, pain, hassle of the procedure and the guilt and the expected cost goes higher. The California proposition about parental notification significantly increases the perceived cost as well, which is why I assume as a matter of policy you and probably all feminists are opposed to it, since abortion rights are sacrosanct.
So, assuming there is some rational thought to “bright, educated” kids in advance of the $64,000 question, the answer is that, on occassion, the desire to experience the thrill and intimacy of unprotected sex exceeds the expected cost of $45 + various unpleasant contingencies.
I would argue that, with readily available and relatively inexpensive abortion always there as an option, young couples are in fact making a rational decision. Were abortion not so readily available or were moral opposition among youth more widespread or unequivocal, I can guarantee you there would be less unprotected sex and teenage pregnancy. It would no longer be a rational choice.
Married Tom,
Amen to that. If abortion were not there as a backup, there would be less casual sex, more use of birth control, and more use of Natural Family Planning.
Yet another way in which Roe v. Wade has warped the moral fabric of America.
Sure thing, Hector and Married Tom.
Nobody *ever* had an unwanted pregnancy in the 50s, 60s or early 70s. There were no coerced adoptions, no back-alley abortions, and *certainly* no shotgun weddings. And under no circumstances were any of the people involved in those situations unhappy. How could they be? They didn’t have the Roe or the no-fault divorce to threaten their morals!
I’m sorry, but this is why I read here less and less. There’s smug all over you two. Ewwww.
Mythago, Broce, Emily, and really all of the other commenters, thanks for the thoughtful insights.
Sorry that you inadvertently came across people whose views vary from yours. Try walking it off.
Okay, folks, the “be nice” bit didn’t work.
Use this thread to advance an anti-abortion, anti-feminist agenda and you’re gone. Married Tom’s assertion is patently ridiculous and ahistorical — one would expect to find lower rates of teenage pregnancy in states where abortions are more restricted (like Mississippi, where there is but one doctor in the whole state who terminates pregnancies). Mississippi has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the nation; liberal Oregon among the lowest.
I’ll link next week to some excellent research in this regard, research that makes clear that availability of abortion has no connection on the willingness to forego contraception. Until then, the discussion of abortion is over in this thread. If you can’t talk about the topic without raising abortion, then refrain altogether.
Excellent, excellent post, Hugo.
There was a study published recently that claims that for some people, the very risk of an unintended pregnancy is a huge turn-on in and of itself. I’ve been trying to dig up the link, but I can’t find it.
I think it can be both an intimacy issue and an issue of getting turned on by risk – similar to folks who enjoy doing it in changing rooms at Nordstrom, because the possibility of getting caught is very thrilling and exciting.
And as per being young specifically…. we have sayings such as “be cool – wrap your tool” and so on, but we don’t really talk about how being safe with your partner can be erotic, do we? I mean, how many of those bad Hollywood sex scenes start with the guy or girl searching for a condom in a drawer or whatever…?
A movie like freaking “Road Trip” is better than half the mush in that regard, because, before the skinny, awkward dude loses his virginity, he and his girl look for a condom. A gross-out comedy as good sex education, you can’t get any more interesting than that.
Is it because we still view so much of this stuff as patently undignified? I don’t know.
But I’ll be thinking about that Macbeth quote. When I was 17, I was also obsessed with Macbeth, for a wholly different reason, but damn, that touched me.
Hugo,
I’m sad to hear that you are unwilling to countenance views that differ from your own. (I am steering clear of using the ‘A’ word as I don’t want to get banned.) If you don’t engage the views of those people who differ from yours, then how do you expect ever to resolve the political debate in this country between pro-choice and pro-life people?
I am sorry, but I need to be loyal to my own conscience and my Christian faith, and in that light I simply cannot accept the pro-choice feminist agenda.
Hector, I do post about abortion — and you are welcome to bring a pro-life view into those threads. Just not here.
Wow, seems I struck a nerve with some people. Again, the question I was trying to address was that of why “bright, educated” people have unprotected sex. I suggest that it is “patently ridiculous” to think that abortion and its availability has absolutely nothing to do with this seeming enigma. I am simply arguing that these teenagers are rational.
I never claimed that there were no back alley abortions, shotgun weddings or adoptions, or other negative consequences suffered as an alternative to legal abortion prior to Roe vs. Wade. In fact, if anything, the fact that these were the only available alternatives in the 50s – early 70s means that the higher expected cost of an unexpected pregnancy kept the rate of unintended pregnancies down. You are helping to make my point if in fact there were fewer (not NO) unintended pregnancies during this period.
My hypothesis is that if the costs of an unintended pregnancy were higher, as in the cases you noted, that the number of kids having unprotected sex would be lower. I was not making an argument for or against abortion, merely pointing out the impact that the cost and availability of abortion has on the seemingly irrational thinking of youthful, sexually active couples.
I am interested in seeing the link to additional information you will post, Hugo. I was providing a hypothesis and am open minded on it. If you look at Guttmacher Institute statistics, the teenage rate went up (along with all abortions) after Roe V. Wade. An economist would argue that the quantity of abortion demanded increased as the price got lower–that Roe v. Wade constitued a shift and flattening in the supply curve, so the quantity of abortions desired at the new, lower price was higher.
Interestingly, the rate among teenagers then leveled off in the mid 80s and has gone down since then. At the same time, the number of states with parental notification laws went from fewer than 9 in 1986 to about 35 in 2007. Does this correlation not help make my case–that when the “cost” of the unintended pregnancy went up (with parental notification) the demand for the risky behavior went down (leading to fewer abortions).
And as a personal measure, Hugo, can you honestly say that the availability of abortion (which you opted to take) had NOTHING to do with your choice to have unprotected sex, not even in the back of your mind?
I can assure you, MT, that based on my recollections, I never considered abortion a possibility until after we began to worry that she my get pregnant. After the election, more on this, along with the studies. But it will be the end of the week…
Again, the trick is to STOP treating pregnancy, the onset of a new human being’s life, as though it’s some awful life-ruining event that two people should have been more “careful” or “responsible” or “cautious” to prevent.
All too often, “romance” is a gloss we put over male dominance of women they have sex with, and no more is this obvious than the romanticization of unprotected sex. You point out that it’s usually a male pressure thing, and I think there’s a unspoken and sometimes subconscious belief that there’s something exciting about sexual intercourse that puts the woman in danger at the man’s behest. That’s why anti-choice nuts hate the pill worse than the condom, I suspect, because the pill removes the “let’s do without; it’s so romantic, baby” pressure. Of all people, John Updike described this male desire well in “Rabbit, Run”—Rabbit loathes protected sex, because he thinks sex should involve more submission from women, more yielding, more risk.
Again, the trick is to STOP treating pregnancy, the onset of a new human being’s life, as though it’s some awful life-ruining event that two people should have been more “careful†or “responsible†or “cautious†to prevent.
Yeah, that’s a level of resisting reality that is beyond even most wingnuts, who are willing to believe other fairy tales, such as “The Iraqis will greet us with roses and parades,” and “Torture in American gulags is nothing but fraternity pranks.” Seriously, people who can swallow those lies would laugh in your face if you suggested that women should welcome non-stop child-bearing.
The best way to prevent STDs is by knowing your partner well enough to have a full understanding of their medical history.
You can know someone’s history and still use condoms. You can know they have herpes, for instance. The idea that knowing someone and being able to contract an STD being mutually exclusive is obviously false—people with herpes usually have a sex life after they find out.
Amanda: “Yeah, that’s a level of resisting reality that is beyond even most wingnuts…”
Hi, Hugo. Will we see one of your “Okay, folks…” calls for civility, now that Amanda has contributed with this?
Oh for crying out loud.
Pregnancy is different things to different people and timing is everything. A woman who’s overjoyed at being pregnant in one year may be devastated in the next. This “oh but it’s such a beautiful event, you should be happy regardless” stuff is patronizing, to both potential mothers and fathers.
If there was better healthcare and better access to childcare in the U.S., I don’t doubt that more people would have more options. But that’s a practical solution, not a flowery band-aid you get to stick on someone else’s wound because they just don’t get how it’s all so wonderful goshdarnit.
Face it – it’s a life changing event, and it can come with severe problems attached: financial, physical, psychological, etc.
People need to be aware of the consequences before they sign up, and have real solutions available.
Cracked.com, a freaking humour site, does a better job of explaining childbirth than a thousand pro-lifers combined. Why is that? Why don’t we tell our young women – you may not be able to have sex for months afterwards, you’ll probably poop yourself during delivery, etc.? Isn’t it because we’re just too afraid to let them make up their own mind about what it is that they are getting into? Charming, that. And sexist.
Either people want to become parents, or they don’t. Shaming them, or fooling them, in order to arm-wrestle them into it is simply ridiculous.
When you desire parenthood, I think it can be one of the most beautiful things imaginable. But even then, you must ask yourself if you really are prepared.
If you’re still in high school – you are not prepared.
“Again, the trick is to STOP treating pregnancy, the onset of a new human being’s life, as though it’s some awful life-ruining event that two people should have been more “careful†or “responsible†or “cautious†to prevent.”
Pregnancy is an awful life-ruining event for a person who does not wish to be pregnant. Even for women who do wish to be pregnant, the ramifications of pregnancy and childbirth are not all positive.
“Why don’t we tell our young women – you may not be able to have sex for months afterwards, you’ll probably poop yourself during delivery, etc.?”
Yes, THAT. Shitting myself in the hospital elevator because my son’s head was crowning while on the way to the delivery room was all sorts of joyous.
“I can assure you, MT, that based on my recollections, I never considered abortion a possibility until after we began to worry that she my get pregnant.”
Yes, but did the availability of the option alter in any way your thinking about having unprotected sex? You may have only discussed and actively considered abortion ex post facto. But did the fact that you had an option other than early marriage and/or early fatherhood, a “back alley” abortion, becoming an absentee father, or having your school age girlfriend go through with the pregnancy and then give the child up for adoption have ANY impact on your willingness to be careless? I went through the same thing, and although we never discussed abortion until AFTER the scare (luckily that was all that it was), we were both aware that this was an option before we opted to be careless and I am sure this added to our proclivity towards risky behavior.
Would people be willing to do this knowing there was no safety net at the bottom… (http://newyork.trapezeschool.com/classes/index.php.) Would skydiving without a backup chute appeal to your average skydiver as much? Would it make you rethink skydiving as an avocation?
The seriousness of the “worse case” scenario definitely has an impact on the average person’s likelihood to participate in the activity.
I assume you were as intelligent if not wise then as now and understood that the likelihood of conception was higher with unprotected versus protected sex. You were also aware that the worse case scenario was probably abortion. If not, you would fall out of the category of “bright educated” youth in my book. If so, then you “considered” abortion a possibility even though it was never explicitly discussed/considered until it became necessary to do so.
This argument does not hold true for those who, for whatever reason and regardless of circumstances, would never consider abortion as an option in the first place. But based on your actions, you clearly were not in this camp.
Okay, I’ll say it civilly: You’re not going to convince people of such a blatant untruth that’s so close to home, dude. Telling people they really want pregnancy when they don’t is like trying to convince them it’s sunny when it’s raining.
Now, it was “civil”. But you still won’t like it, because you want to be shielded from it being pointed out that you’re wishing for people to be not-people.
I took the risk of unprotected sex on two occasions before I met my husband, in the belief that my worst case option was carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the baby up for adoption (I was in the “pro-choice in terms of law but I could never have an abortion myself” set). When I was late, I realized that I wouldn’t feel OK going through with adoption, and that my actual worst case would be keeping the baby. But (never having actually been pregnant) that wasn’t a worst case I actually had to go through with.
Why did I do it? Bad impulse control, difficulty getting hold of birth control, making choices pre-AIDS when condoms weren’t so much used. Honestly, having the guy’s child eventually – if he were willing to commit to that and we both had the ability to provide for the child – wasn’t altogether unappealing, but I don’t think it was a desire for a child then that made me do it. Why did he do it? I’m not sure – maybe he made the not too unreasonable assumption that I did have birth control (don’t assume, always ask), or maybe there was a certain thrill in risk taking for him.
Actually, though, the time when I felt the strongest desire to “jump the life to come” was well after I was married, with my husband, in, of all places, then war-torn former Yugoslavia, where he had gone to work with peace groups for several months, and I had arrived to join him for the last few weeks of that.
More generally, it’s not so simple a matter to say that people are or aren’t rational actors with respect to sex. I think that several things are true:
1) People do, yes, of course, adjust their sexual behavior to perceived risk. (See, for example, shifts in gay male sexual behavior as a result of the AIDS epidemic.) And the ready availability of birth control plus the ready availability of abortion does make for a big shift in the risk of more casual sex.
2) Sex is a really, really powerful drive for most people (even if some, like bmmg39, are exceptions), so even if the risks are high, people do often go ahead and do it anyway.
3) Risk can be part of the appeal of certain sexual choices (else where would be the appeal of sex-with-risk-of-discovery).
4) People (not only teenagers, but adults) aren’t fully rational actors, and aren’t always good at assessing risks and probabilities. We give some risks more than their due, and some less.
And that’s just for a start. So it’s not so easy to say, well, abortion lowers the worst case risk, and so has to make unprotected sex more common, or not. Particularly when Roe v. Wade was accompanied by a whole bunch of other changes that affected sexual choices. I would seriously doubt that you’d find that birth control use was drastically less post-Roe v. Wade (or in states like New York pre-Roe v. Wade), simply because birth control availability has tended to increase at the same time that abortion became legal, and abortion’s still a bad enough consequence that sex-without-birth-control is much higher risk than sex-with-birth-control. But the combination of more available birth control and more available abortion does drop the perceived risks of sexual intercourse, and I can’t imagine that change is unconnected to changes in people’s choices about when to have sexual intercourse at all (I don’t think anyone would even argue that, in fact).
“Yes, but did the availability of the option alter in any way your thinking about having unprotected sex?”
MT,
I began having sex as a young teenager. I knew full well that abortion was an option for an unplanned pregnancy. Even knowing that abortion was an option, I still used contraception -and- condoms each and every time as a young teenager. I wasn’t about to get pregnant when I had no desire to get pregnant, thanks. I also had no desire to have an abortion, even though I am and always have been pro-choice for myself and everyone else.
Your insistence that young women have sex without using contraception just because they understand that abortion is available is extremely offensive. Women do not want to have abortions. We don’t take risks just because we know we could conceivably use abortions as birth control. Your insistence that we do is an insult to our intelligence.
“I also had no desire to have an abortion, even though I am and always have been pro-choice for myself and everyone else.”
Let me just make it perfectly clear: Even though I didn’t want to have an abortion, if I had gotten pregnant as a young teenager, I very well might have had an abortion.
Also, at this stage in the game, I have had a tubal ligation. The chances of me getting pregnant are virtually non-existent. Should I somehow end up carrying a normal pregnancy at this stage in the game, I would have an abortion. No ifs, no ands, and no buts.
“If used properly”, the Pill is more than 99% effective. What you’re doing here is confusing the ideal failure rate (how many women will get pregnant in one year of use if it’s done perfectly?) versus the actual failure rate (how many women who use this method get pregnant in one year of use?) So in an ideal world, NFP and the Pill are pretty close. In the real world, the Pill’s failure rate is something like 8-10%; for NFP it’s more like 12-25%.
Of course there are many other things besides failure rate that affect choice of contraceptives: what are the side effects? how reversible is it? how well does this method work for me? But to pretend that NFP is the perfect solution is really just a snotty, backhanded way of saying that the only reason women get knocked up when they don’t want to be is that they didn’t have the self-control to use NFP properly.
(By the way, can we please also drop using nonsense phrases like “casual sex”, which simply means “somebody had sex with less of a personal and emotional connection to their partner than I require”. If you want to argue sex should be kept within marriage, okay, but talking about “casual sex” means you just carefully drew the lines of morality right outside the edges of your own sex life.)
I’m not wild about the phrase “casual sex” here, either – not because I think it’s unreasonable to argue that sex should be reserved for a certain level of commitment or willingness to stand by each other, nor yet because I think one can’t still make that case while setting that level of commitment at something less than marriage, but because “casual sex” doesn’t, by itself, suggest any real grounds for saying which sex is too “casual.” Instead, it invites people to judge on fuzzy grounds, often on the basis of whether they feel really, really fond of whomever they’ve chosen to sleep with. Which isn’t, in itself, any particularly good safeguard either against STDs or that things would go well if you had an unplanned pregnancy.
Better to be more specific than that.
Lynn Gazis Sax,
To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I can’t define casual sex, but I know it when I see it.
If you haven’t known your partner for a decently long length of time, if you have no intention of a long-term relationship possibly culminating in marriage, if you would not be willing to die for your partner as Christ died for the church, and if you would not be ready to raise a child together if she gets pregnant, then I think that that sexual relationship falls short of a truly Christian ideal.
You see, I think you’re better off saying that – and making the full argument for it – than saying “casual sex,” because a lot of people in fact have what they consider to be not at all “casual sex,” which still doesn’t meet those conditions.
Faith, I would argue that in almost all instances women use abortions as birth control. What other purpose is there other than to control an unwanted birth from occurring? Rape and incest, less than 1% of reported instances, are the exception.
I would also agree that most of the time most unmarried teen types do use contraception, otherwise the rate of teenage pregnancy would be much higher that it is. I am merely suggesting that those occassional instances of carelessness are more likely with abortion as an option. Again, this whole thread is dedicated to exploring this seeming enigma.
I did not say that they have sex without contraception JUST because abortion is available. Young women and men perceive there must be some value to it first–Lynn Gazis Sax makes an excellent point that much of the allure can not be explained completely “rationally”. Sex in public places, considering you could get thrown in jail if caught, is as seemingly irrational as unprotected sex (when a child is unwanted) unless there is some x-factor like the excitement or novelty of the experience. I am merely arguing that although the risk may not be rational to many people, even the most lovestruck fools are more likely to have sex during the proverbial drive-in movie or at “lookout point” than in a subway at rush hour and thus there is some element of rationality to their thinking.
Hugo,
This is a good post and question to ask. I’ve always wondered about it myself and everyone always has regrets after the fact. I’m talking about the cases where someone gets an STD or an unplanned pregnancy. Everyone that I knew who chose not to be proactive had STD’s and at least a few eventually died from AIDS. One thing I’ve learned is even if the question needs asking, if one asks people’s responses are usually angry or defensive. I had a girlfriend who planned a pregnancy in high school (she was 15) because she thought it was a way to get the boy to marry her. He did not and the attorney went after him for child support. Another student friend had 5 abortions by age 25. I try not to be judgemental about such situations, but I did wonder if she used birth control. She claimed each time that the birth control didn’t work. Another friend had a child at 16, got pregnant by a boyfriend of 30, moved away and gave that child up for adoption and then came back, married him and got pregnant immediately. He was divorced and they had 5 children between them. She didn’t use birth control and when I inquired about her decision to not use it, her response is that it was God’s decision whether she got pregnant or not. I moved on in my life and stopped contact with all of them. I didn’t see a lot of willingness to accept responsbility.
“I would argue that in almost all instances women use abortions as birth control.”
Fair enough, I suppose. But most women do not use abortion as a primary means of avoiding giving birth. Abortion is usually a last ditch effort after the primary means of avoiding pregnancy have failed. Most women do use actual contraception if it is available to them and they are properly educated in the matter. I cringe when pro-lifers argue that women use abortion as birth control because they usually intend to argue that women are using abortion as their only means of preventing childbirth…which is complete bullshit, to be quite frank.
“Rape and incest, less than 1% of reported instances, are the exception.”
Rape and incest are vastly underreported. There is currently no way possible to have any clear idea of how many abortions are performed as a result of rape and incest. But if you are going to argue that abortion is birth control, then even in these instances, abortion is being used as birth control. At least be consistent in your argument.
I totally agree that few women use abortion as the primary form of birth control. This would be incredibly expensive, inconvenient, and harrowing. We are discussing in this thread the motivation behind the few, probably rare, times in which young couples throw caution to the wind.
Rape and incest are probably underreported, but this is not relevant to anything other than the 1% aspect of the argument. The 1% figure came from Guttmacher Institute, which although is not 100% accurate is nonetheless a pro-choice group whose research seems respected by both the right and the left.
The important distinction here is that there is no choice of behavior on the woman’s behalf, thus no option for birth control up front (unless on the pill or some such contraceptive). Thus, there was never a decision to be careless in the first place, therefore opting for abortion as a last option and thus an implicit form of “birth control” at the time of decision to have sex.
Incidentally, I am one of the loathesome libertarian types (according to Hugo, at least). I am not ardently pro-life, I am pro-choice with caveats. I am Christian and I believe certain institutions are inherently sinful–such as prostitution and abortion. I am in favor of gay marriage to the degree marriage is a legal construct (as opposed to a religious one, which is up to the religious institution, not the state) as I recognize the value and necessity for a loving couple to be recognized in numerous instances as legally bound.
God endowed us with the ability to choose the right path when faced with of these temptations and He will not put a choice in front of us that we are incapable of handling through grace and prayer. We were not placed in a world without temptation, choice, and the opportunity to do the right thing. Because I believe this, and in non-coercive and loving ways of helping people to make moral choices, I am an advocate of freedom to choose in most instances (with no injury, property damage, etc, or as some call them “victimless crimes”).
I am however repulsed with the “pro abortion” agenda which seeks to diminish the guilt and obfuscate the sinful nature of abortion itself and make it seem like “not such a big deal”, but this is different than wanting to see the government step in and make anything illegal. If anything, this would be consistent with the “safe, legal, and rare” platform advocated by Clinton.
Precisely. I have meaningful erotic encounters; you sleep around; he has casual sex. It’s whatever the person saying “casual sex” thinks of as a step down from the kind of sex they think is OK. In other words, it’s a self-congratulatory, nonsense phrase with no point except to club other people for being Less Chaste Than Thou.
I’m also pretty sure that the “Christian ideal” for sexual relationships is, in order of preference, a) chastity, b) only within marriage.
mythago: “But to pretend that NFP is the perfect solution is really just a snotty, backhanded way of saying that the only reason women get knocked up when they don’t want to be is that they didn’t have the self-control to use NFP properly.”
I’m starting to think that people read my post in a vacuum, completely ignoring what preceded it. My post on NFP was in response to the assertion that those who practice it believe that all sex needs to be reproductive. I don’t practice NFP, as I’m not sexually active and do not care to start, and I was never attacking those who choose to use artificial contraceptives, but I like the idea of NFP and I don’t believe that those who use it and/or eschew using artificial contraceptives should be considered backward. If I thought all sex should be reproductive, I would be opposing homosexuals having sex and older people having sex. I oppose neither.
Oh, yeah, and the Internet could use several more people like Lynn Gazis-Sax, by the way, when it comes to making one’s case with tact and kindness.
Be the change you want to see and all that.
Did anyone say that using NFP is backward or stupid? Did someone accuse you of expecting all sex to be reproductive?
I accused you of posting a misleading statistic about NFP and of having a specific bias towards it purely because you see it as ‘natural’.
Mythago,
Yes, chastity or only with marriage is the way the Christian ethic has been traditionally understood. I am a flaming liberal (by historical Christian standards though not by the standards of modern America), and I think there can be morally valid sexual relationships that fall outside that rubric, since I value the spirit of the law over the letter. In order to be morally valid, however, they should partake in the spiritual and emotional goods that are also found in Christian marriage. Some non-marital sexual relationships share those goods, but purely casual liaisons do not.
As a wise man once said, the existence of dawn, twilight and other gray areas doesn’t mean that we cannot distinguish day from night.
Ms. Gazis-Sax is, indeed, a thoughtful and insightful commenter.
NFP is far from a perfect solution, and it doesn’t work for everyone by a long shot. It does, however, work for some people (being currently the most common birth control method in Poland) and it can be highly effective when used properly. It deserves more respect than it is often given.
Well, yes, because Paul very clearly states that the only appropriate sexual outlet is within marriage; it’s explicit, not a “traditional understanding”. If the sun is in the sky, no amount of liberal thinking lets you credibly claim it’s actually twilight.
It’s fine to say that some nonmarital relationships can be ethical, but you can’t then turn around and accuse those of engaging in “casual” relationships of violating Christian teachings.
Mythago,
St. Paul also said that women should keep their heads covered in church, and that wives should obey their husbands. I’m prepared to say that WRT those specific recommendations, St. Paul was a man of his time, and limited by his society. I don’t think that, any more, wives should be called to ‘submit to their husbands’. What I think is that we should strive to distil the essence of that teaching, which is that there is virtue and glory in submission to God and to other people, for men and women alike.
Similarly, WRT sexual ethics, I think we should try to respect the spirit of the law by identifying those things that actually make a good marriage an image of Christ and His Church. And no, I don’t think a priest saying the blessing is necessarily one of those things. I’m an Anglican so I consider marriage a great thing, but not a _sacrament_ per se. If we can find many of those same goods in a non-marital relationship, then it would seem as though that relationship is also worthy of respect. Which is why I draw a distinction between ‘casual’ sex and legitimate nonmarital relationships.
Again, I’m not following the idea that we can reject holy teachings because they’re out of step with modern sensibilities, and ignore both the spirit and letter of the actual law because it seems onerous and archaic.
Saying that Paul was a ‘man of his time’ ignores his rejection of other things held to be true in ‘his time’ – for example, much of Jewish law. You can’t really have it both ways; either his words set forth God’s word, and we should follow them even if they seem kind of stuffy, or they’re simply his informed opinions. If the latter, then it’s not merely his pronouncements about head-covering and marital relations that can be accepted or rejected as we please.
The essence of his teachings are that rejection of base sexual urges is the highest calling – but, obviously not everyone can or wishes to go to that extreme, therefore the approved outlet for sex is within marriage. I honestly don’t see how you can find any other Christian interpretation unless you are prepared to say that all of Paul’s teachings were merely advisory and not binding.
Mythago,
Do you have a dog in this fight? I thought you weren’t a Christian?
St. Paul said it was better to marry than to burn, and implies that marriage is a remedy against immorality. I agree, having marriage as one of the building blocks of our society helps to militate against sexual promiscuity. It does not follow that every non-marital relationship, however, is therefore promiscuous. The case can be made that St. Paul was condemning particular kinds of sexual immorality when he condemned ‘porneia’, and maybe not all nonmarital relationships are like that.
I think that scriptural pronouncements should be interpreted, among other things, in light of natural reason. I can provide a natural reason argument why, for example, things like masturbation, adultery, incest, polygamy, and casual sex fall short of and detract from the goods that are found within an ideal marriage. However, there are many marriages which are spiritually and emotionally dead, and many nonmarital relationships which appear to be spiritually and emotionally healthy.
“Did anyone say that using NFP is backward or stupid?”
[sigh]
No, not here, and I didn’t suggest otherwise.
“Did someone accuse you of expecting all sex to be reproductive?”
No, no one “accused” ME of that. Hugo merely made a comment that suggested that many people believe that, and I was trying to clarify a position.
“I accused you of posting a misleading statistic about NFP and of having a specific bias towards it purely because you see it as ‘natural.’”
How difficult do you think the Pill and NFP are to use? And I didn’t even mention NFP’s added benefits, because my comment was brief, but now that you’ve made it not-so-brief…
Christianity is far from being a simple blueprint on anything. It’s a paradoxical faith. Which is why I love it.
I think the actual vs. ideal failure rates make it pretty clear which of the two is more difficult to use. Of course, those aren’t the only choices, and which choice is best for each woman is an individual decision. NFP is a great choice for many people, but it’s not “99% effective,” it’s not automatically better than other forms of contraception, and when you refer to it as “natural” and other forms of contraception as “artificial”, you’re not neutrally reporting one of many contraceptive options.
You don’t seem to have a dog in the fight as to whether other people have “casual sex,” and I don’t recall anyone telling you to lay out the details of your sex life or STFU, Hector. You’re promoting Christian doctrine as a basis for your opinion as to what sexual relationships are proper. Is it somehow forbidden for me to point out that, actually, what you’re saying is not Christian doctrine and is your stretching of Christian doctrine to fit your personal comfort level?
“I think the actual vs. ideal failure rates make it pretty clear which of the two is more difficult to use.”
No, really. How does one fail to use the Pill “properly”? And if a couple doesn’t quite grasp how to use Natural Family Planning properly, there is plenty of information and courses that they could take. Of course, sometimes you have to dig to find them, since NFP, being natural and all, is considered backward and the choice of Luddites. Good luck finding NFP information in pharmacies, as there’s not much to buy.
“Of course, those aren’t the only choices, and which choice is best for each woman is an individual decision. NFP is a great choice for many people, but it’s not ’99% effective,’ it’s not automatically better than other forms of contraception, and when you refer to it as ‘natural’ and other forms of contraception as ‘artificial,’ you’re not neutrally reporting one of many contraceptive options.”
Again, I haven’t gotten into NFP’s many hidden benefits that artificial (not sure what problem you have with that word) contraceptives can’t touch.
And my comment on how people view pregnancy these days didn’t refer exclusively to their OWN pregnancies; it also referred to other people’s pregnancies, as well, as in the case of Bristol Palin or someone in your neighborhood whom you suspect had what people call an “oopsie.”
One fails to use the Pill properly by missing a day, by taking antibiotics at the same time, by having the flu so one doesn’t keep it on one’s stomach long enough to be absorbed, and so on. Again, perfect use of the Pill gives better protection than perfect use of NFP; imperfect use of the Pill gives better protection than imperfect use of NFP. (As for “artificial,” I’m not sure if sticking a thermometer in my vagina every day and making a temperature chart is quite what I’d call “natural,” but YMMV, I suppose.)
Of course which method of contraception to use and is best varies enormously; I would no more suggest every woman use the Pill than I could keep a straight face when impassioned advocates insist everyone should use NFP.
There really is no evil conspiracy to keep NFP hidden, by the way. Planned Parenthood’s site lists “fertility awareness methods” (of which NFP is one) right along with all the other birth control, and your pharmacy will happily sell you whatever thermometers, charts, ovulation-detection kits and anything else you need.