My Genderal Interest column at Jezebel this week: Why Young Women Keep Making Striptease Videos, and Why Guys Keep Sharing Them.

Excerpt:

Cohen — and many of my students in the Navigating Pornography class I’m teaching this semester — told me story after story of how young men relentlessly urge young women to send them photos or striptease videos. (My students point out that the moves in these videos are invariably derivative and identical, just as are the pouts and poses in the still photographs.) Though research shows that the number of young people who actually send naked photos or videos may be surprisingly small, Cohen and others suggest that a far higher number of girls are pressured to do so. That coercion, whether it’s successfully resisted or not, is more of the problem than the sexy images themselves. “Back in the day,” one student of mine said, “a guy could only bug you to do something with him if you were physically together. Now he can nag you into doing something sexual that you’ll regret — while he’s on the other side of town and you’re alone in your bedroom.”

Why would young men who have a universe of explicit porn at their disposal pressure young women into sending them photos or videos that are tame by comparison? Predictably, the answer has as much to do with power as arousal. In explaining this, sex educator Charlie Glickman cites the John Hughes’ classic Sixteen Candles, in which a young Anthony Michael Hall begs Molly Ringwald to give him her panties, which will serve as proof of his sexual prowess to his disbelieving friends. “Getting a young woman to make you a video or send you a naked pic is the same thing,” Glickman suggests. A “sexted” picture isn’t just porn, it’s porn that its recipient will be the first (but probably not the only) guy to possess. That’s why boys usually share what they’re sent, invariably violating a promise to keep the images private. The photo or the video is an irresistible “talisman of manhood,” Glickman says. “It’s about proving to other guys that you were able to get a girl to overcome her inhibitions.”

From 2009.

I posted earlier this year against the “myth of female frailty” and the lie that “one mistake will ruin your life”. The topic of that myth arose again this week when I met with one of my former All Saints youth group kids, “Holly.”

Holly, whom I’ve known since she was in eighth grade, is now headed into her senior year of high school; she’s 17. When I first met Holly, and indeed for the next several years, Holly “presented” outwardly as the pretty, outgoing, poised and popular blonde whose passage through adolescence seems almost unfairly graceful. Holly was much sought after as a friend (and more) by boys and girls alike; at our Wednesday night youth group meetings, I often saw not-very-subtle attempts by kids of both sexes to sit on “Holly’s couch” and be near her.

Of course, Holly was far more than the walking embodiment of a stock American stereotype. Not only was she exceptionally bright and a particularly talented writer, her childhood had been touched by tragedy and loss to a degree that set her well apart from most of her peers. A few — a very few — of her friends got to know the depth of that loss and its impact on Holly’s life; I was one of the small group of adults to whom she also regularly turned. I watched her struggle with the disconnect between how the rest of the world perceived her and how she felt on the inside, and we talked often about her frustration with the realization that she was the object of desire, admiration, jealousy, and envy when for the most part, she felt out of place and frequently lonely. Holly’s is not an unfamiliar story — at its most extreme, call it the “Richard Cory” phenomenon after that famous Edward Arlington Robinson poem so loved by generations of misperceived adolescents.

This summer, Holly broke up with her first serious boyfriend, got her first lead in a play, and let go of a great many of her old friends. When I met with her earlier this week, her long blonde hair was mahogany brown. Despite the heat, she wasn’t wearing the short skirts that had been her trademark since junior high school. She wore corduroy pants, a t-shirt, and a vest. Not a trace of make-up on her face, but when we met at a local coffee shop, there was a sense of real happiness behind her eyes. Holly’s making changes; the outside shift reflects an inner transformation — and the brunette tresses a greater willingness to expose to the world the darker, more complex aspects of her personality. Continue reading →

My Genderal Interest column this week at Jezebel looks at pick-up artists and their mistaken ideas about what women want: Only Assholes Think You Won’t Sleep With Them Unless They’re Assholes. Excerpt:

The idea that women are the architects of their own sexual adversity is massively oversold by pick-up artists and men’s rights activists alike. Guys like Roissy, Ethan, and Wizard push the “good girls only want bad boys” theory because they sense the obvious benefit: If they then themselves mistreat women, they are not doing it out of any defect in their natures, but out of a rational strategy for improving their mating odds. It is women themselves who have made these rules, these guys claim with varying degrees of sincerity; we fellas just have to adapt as best we can. Bad male behavior gets cunningly reframed as an evolutionary adaptation to female desire — and the blame for everything falls once again on the shoulders (and hearts, and libidos) of women who don’t know (or won’t admit) the truth.

The evidence is compelling that the sexual appeal of assholes is wildly exaggerated. But that doesn’t seem to stop those who long to justify their own bad behavior from making the case that they’re just giving the ladies what they really want. As if.

Classes started this past week at Pasadena City College. In the midst of a very bleak budget environment, it’s been nonetheless good to get back to teaching after a long two months away.

I’m so touched by the outpouring of support I’ve received from students and faculty in the wake of this surprisingly public discussion swirling around me. But while that support has been welcome, I don’t take it as a sign that I have nothing to rethink and no further changes to make. I’m still listening to friends and critics (and to the rare and precious view who are both). In the meantime, I’ve also taken steps to ensure that any student who feels uncomfortable having me as a teacher in the women’s history course can transfer to another section taught by a female colleague.

I did want to publicize two things. First, the F Word Media Collective will broadcast/stream a one-hour show tomorrow (Monday) from 12-1 PST. Hosted by Meghan Murphy, with whom I’ve had civil debates both on-air and in writing, the show will focus on the larger subject of men in feminism — and the issues surrounding the blow-up over the revelations about my past. Shira Tarrant and Ernesto Aguilar will be guests. Listen at Co-op Radio live or wait for a podcast to be posted within a day or two.

Second, a powerful statement emerged last week from a group of established feminist activists. Excerpt:

The recent controversy around Hugo Schwyzer has prompted alarming behaviour among the online feminist community that we are compelled to address. We want to be clear: In no way do we excuse Schwyzer’s past actions. Many strong and valid critiques have been made around Schwyzer’s position in the feminist movement — some of those critiques have been made by some of us writing this letter — and it’s crucial to create an open space for those concerns to be shared and addressed.

We have witnessed first hand silencing and bullying behaviour of some feminists by other feminists in our community. This behavior has caused a great deal of concern, anger, and fear. We fear being personally targeted and ostracized, with our reputations tarnished as we are falsely aligned with Schwyzer and his actions simply because we disagree with the way in which the discussion around him has been controlled. Silencing others and censoring ourselves impedes our social justice work. Bullying instills fear to the point that we, the collective anonymous authors of this statement, do not feel safe openly expressing our views. As a result, we are forced to respond to this behavior anonymously—an unfortunate and unacceptable result of take-down culture. These issues are not simply about us. We are concerned there are others whose views may be suppressed as well.

Read the whole thing.

My Genderal Interest column at Jezebel this week looks at the rising number of births to unmarried woman, and why that might not be an entirely bad thing. Excerpt:

Single moms, write Edin and Kefalas, see motherhood as a “promise they can keep.” They are certain of their capacity to love a child. They are more cautious about committing to marry the fathers of their children (or other men), not only because of their keen awareness of divorce statistics but because they don’t see any reason to settle for less than a truly excellent relationship. Seen in that light, the rise in unwed motherhood and the declining marriage rate are cause for rejoicing. Despite Lori Gottlieb’s famous plea, fewer women than ever are willing to settle for merely “good enough.” It’s not that men are less economically viable than they were in the past — it’s that even poor women want more from a marriage than a lifetime union with a good provider. Rising rates of illegitimacy, in other words, may signify that more and more women can afford to be choosy. That’s a good thing.

A woman with a bachelor’s or higher degree is statistically far more likely to wait until after marriage to have her first child; the rise in unwed motherhood is driven primarily by women who haven’t finished college. But what women of all social classes share is what one friend of mine, a single mom, calls the “if/then” attitude towards marriage. As she puts it, “If I meet the right guy, then I’d like to get married. But if I don’t meet the right guy, then that’s okay too. I’m not going to get married out of desperation.” That jives with what Edin and Kefalas heard from many of the women they interviewed. That insistence on doing marriage right –- or not doing it all –- transcends class.