abstinence-only

Before I forget: Lynn Gazis-Sax on Oxytocin, the Abstinence-Only Movement's Fetish Hormone

Abstinence-only worshipers have long made a fetish out of what they call the “love hormone” oxytocin. Women and to a much lesser extent men produce it when they have an orgasm. And it really does seem to be present during post-orgasmic cuddling. Wingnuts say this weakens women terribly because, you know, women who have too much sex, especially, with too many partners just completely lose any ability to love anyone ever again. Especially, their subtext goes, the man who, eventually, is supposed to have complete legal custody of her.

Never mind that women’s bodies regularly produce great huge gouts of oxytocin during, oh, say, childbirth or while nursing. Nevermind that really whopping amounts of the artificial version of oxytocin, Pitocin, are routinely given to women to induce labor. And yet despite the oxytocin receptor exhaustion thesis you never hear of women who’ve given birth becoming incapable of loving their husbands, or moms and dads, or subsequent offspring.

Nope, to hear the ‘wingers talk (including Bush Administration family-planning czar and occasional licensed physician Eric Keroack) this evidently happens only when the oxytocin in question involves fiddling with lady parts. To climax. Which, I might add, suggests a touching faith on ‘winger’s parts that most women climax regularly during intercourse.

But I digress…

I really just wanted to mention that back in January Lynn Gazis-Sax of Noli Irritare Leones wrote a really great post about oxytocin that begins

Oxytocin: The Cuddle Hormone?

It’s actually my mother, not me, who is the oxytocin expert, so, Mom, if you happen to read this on Facebook and see that I get anything wrong, feel free to let me know in Facebook comments. But destinyinprogress, at Alexandria, asked me a question about oxytocin in reply to one of my posts, so, here is what I know, and my thoughts about what I’ve read.

My mother did research on oxytoxin, when I was a teenager, and wrote articles with titles like Oxytocin analogs with oxygen-containing side chains in position 3.

From dinner table conversation when I was young, I learned a few basic facts…

She said it here.

Lynn’s got the details. Bottom line: it does seem to facilitate bonding but not as much as abstinence kooks wish, there’s not much evidence of “exhaustion” from it, even though men don’t produce as much as women do it seems to have similar results. And finally, from Lynn’s somewhat more sexually conservative position, the oxytocin dodge is sort of a red herring anyway since even if it were true (and it’s not) there might be better, um, reasons to strive for monogamy and fidelity. And better explanations than “love hormone” exhaustion for why one might not.

Actually My Love is *Not* a Rose... Or an Apple, Lollypop, a Piece of Tape, or Gum, etc.

In comments to my sports/virginity question where I questioned why, for instance, losing one’s virginity was supposed to destroy your life but blowing your knee out in high-school sports isn’t; why getting an STI (even a bad one like HIV) is supposed to ruin your life but picking up hepatitis while trekking in Nepal isn’t, MinorityReport (who blogs at, well, Minority Report) said

Great point. I wish that would have been the gist of my high school sex-ed classes.

An example: The school hired chastity speaker, Molly Kelly. I forget most of her talk. However, I do remember one very clear image she used. Throughout her speech Molly repeatedly dropped an apple. At the end of her presentation she held up the apple she had dropped and an apple that had been set aside. She then asked which we would rather eat, the apple that had been dropped on the floor (repeatedly) or the apple that had been set aside. It drove her point home, and for me at least it made an impact.

I would have been nice to hear something like, “But if you do _______, it’s not the end and life goes on.”

She said it here.

Oohhh, I had this realization after reading her Molly Kelly story and now I’m kind of beside-myself irritated.

You know all those abstinence-only metaphors of apples, roses, even gum and tape? Every one of them is a single-use consumable good. Bouncing an apple into apple sause just takes the cake though. The difference between apples and, oh, say, your body is even if you managed to get bruised during sex you’d still recover quickly. And most of the time, for most women and men, you’re not bruised during sex to begin with.

Apples, gum, roses, tape, suckers, etc., don’t recover at all but they’re fucking things, not people!

You want a better, but still-inanimate metaphor for a man or woman who’s had sex? Try a rubber ball. In fact try a superball since those seem to bounce with more energy than they begin with. How about a book? Try a deep pool that a pebble has been tossed in. A painting, an alarm clock, a window, a fireplace, a chicken and an egg (which came first?), a ski hill, a piano or flute.

And to be perfectly honest I don’t care for any of those because humans aren’t inanimate nor are we, women or men, either literally or figuratively consumed in the course of, well, intercourse.

A dropped apple is simply marvelous for propaganda in the service of patriarchy but evilly inaccurate for sex education.

The Tangled Web of Sticking to Knitting


Photo by Flickr user Artiii. Used under a Creative Commons license.

This is all apropos of nothing, and a bit silly to boot, not that that ever seems to stop me. Anyway, it’s about a little bug in abstinence-only policies.

Ok, so… When I was taking that coordinated women’s-studies/interpersonal-communications/sex-education course last winter one of the great lectures we got was on the (as the professor put it) symphony of hormones in the menstrual cycle. One of the points she mentioned was that there are certain spike-y points in the cycle where libido tends to be a lot higher, and that, for a lot of women, that’s when they’re more likely to be in a “go for it” mood.

This is sort of rhetorical but does anyone here have that experience either for themselves or their partners?

Another thing she mentioned, and I’ve heard a lot of other women mention as well, is that by replacing the normal hormone fluxuations hormonal contraception also eliminates the go-for-it feeling as well with the result that while you can have intercourse more often without fear of pregnancy you’re not necessarily as interested.

This isn’t as rhetorical: have you noticed that either in yourself or with a partner?

So anyway, to the extent that’s a known side effect of hormonal contraception it wouldn’t have been considered much of a problem when it was being developed and introduced 50-odd years ago: men were still considered mostly interested in sex while, as disengaged members of the “no-sex” class, women were considered to be mainly concerned with, or concerned with avoiding, the resulting pregnancies, and so affects on women’s libido just wasn’t as much of a concern. (Given the still-primative state of social attitudes towards consent, even consent in marriage. Still a fuzzy concept for some people by the way!)

Nowadays not so much, sure, but there you go, right? Anyway, I was thinking that if anti-feminists weren’t so male-centric about sex it seems to me that they might be a little less wiggy about opposing hormonal contraception about women. Because (from an abstinence-only, “just say no” point of view) something that on average flattens out women’s libidos ought to be a good thing, right?

Radically Redefining Vanilla


Photo by Flickr user Saffanna. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Part A: Observation
So Sam Sugar of SugarBank reports that

The Mainichi Daily News, my breakfast read, reports that vaginal ejaculation disorder affects 70% of Japanese males… Supposedly it’s a byproduct of masturbatory techniques which don’t feel like a vagina.

See the rest of Sugar’s take on the story here.

And here’s a bit more detail from the actual Mainichi Daily News article

Tsueno Akaeda, a doctor who runs a clinic in Tokyo’s Roppongi, agrees with urologist Nagao.

“There are definitely more people with vaginal ejaculation disorder than there used to be,” he says. “There has been incredible progress made in masturbation goods and there are plenty of people who can ejaculate into an artificial vagina, but not the real thing. I get more than a few men come to see me about that. And those in their 20s and 30s have grown up watching adult movies. They find masturbation easier and more satisfying than intercourse.”

Experts say one of the main reasons men develop vaginal ejaculation disorder is that they learn how to masturbate using methods that feel distinctly different from vaginas, such as rubbing up against pillows or lying face down and moving back and forward for stimulation until climax.

“Naturally picking up somewhat unnatural methods has to be the main reason,” Nagao says. “Or, some guys obtain pleasure from some method they’ve happened to discover almost by accident and keep on doing it that way. It used to be that your bad buddies would tell you the best way to jerk off.”

Source: Mainichi Daily News, which appears to be the online, English-language version of Japan’s oldest newspaper but may or may not be its most respectable.

Sometime last year I think I linked to a post by a young man recounting to other young men how actual sex with actual women isn’t so much what one might expect when one’s entire prior experience has been masturbating to porn.

Which, now that I think about it, might explain the otherwise inexplicable popularity of porn-style “money shot” masturbation during real, actual sex with another person.

And this actually makes sense. Male masturbation really doesn’t feel very much like vaginal intercourse, and depending on how long one has been doing it then it really might take a little practice to learn to have orgasms another way. (Take that, evolutionary “male-orgasms-are-easily-tied-to-reproduction” psychologists!)

Oh, and while I’m at it, men obviously aren’t alone in this. My newsfeed reader informs me that “Slut Machine” of Jezebel just posted her own variation on a very familiar theme

I would read about “mind-blowing” sex in Joan Collins and V.C. Andrews books, passages that likened women’s orgasms to lightning strikes and bells sounding, so I had really hyped up sex in my mind. I knew I wouldn’t come on my first couple tries at sex with a boy. Finally, after fooling around with my boyfriend for a month or two, I came while he was going down on me, and I remember being like, “Oh! That’s what that is? I can do that better and faster by myself!” By then, I realized that what would happen when I touched myself was an orgasm, but for some reason I thought it would be different — or better — with a partner. And sometimes it is.

Read the quote in context here.

Part B: Inquiry

But here’s an interesting question: to what extent is the notion that penis-in-vagina intercourse as the inevitable, “natural” conclusion to heterosexual sex a social construct and how much of it really is biologically imperative? Seriously! For real! Totally serious question.

Because it seems to me that while some men and women obviously take to it like cats take to landing on their feet, and while many others figure it out sooner or later, and while pretty much every story anthropological or erotic, dry as dust or tongue in cheek, assumes that intercourse is the natural, the inevitable, and the quintessential erotic experience for men and that women’s “problem” is that their architecture just isn’t “designed” to “properly” or “naturally” enjoy intercourse. Heck, the “fore” in “foreplay” is a contraction for the “playing around” men are supposed to do to “help” get our partners ready do before getting down to the… what?... the serious work of intercourse?

And yet along comes word that, left to their own devices men’s ability to have “vaginal” orgasms (ok, orgasms in their partner’s vagina) can easily approach the same rates commonly attributed to women.

But…

See…

Not to put on my tinfoil hat about evolutionary behaviorism again or anything but here’s one of my big problems with their most fundamental assumptions: all flatworm sex might be reproductive sex but not all human sex is reproductive sex. Instead much, in fact nearly all human sex appears to be recreational. When left to our own devices anyway. And, as Tsueno Akaeda in the Mainichi article or pretty much every Babeland page will tell you, the devices we can leave ourselves with demonstrate incredible progress in masturbation goods. Which, contra sociobiology, isn’t a issue at all unless a species becomes so incompetent at sex for reproduction that we manage do it at less than 2.2 times in our sexual lifetimes.

And…

Meanwhile…

I actually enjoy intercourse quite a lot, especially when a partner and I have been together long enough to be able to learn each other’s rhythms and rhymes well enough to both have orgasms that way. And given the subtle signals I’ve sometimes gotten from my partners (“I want you *here,” with a pull and a push, for instance) I’m not the only one who enjoys it.

But intercourse is a bit problematic orgasmically for me. It took me a couple of tries the first time I had intercourse. Later I had the opposite problem and had to wrestle with coming in the first moments which, platitudes about machismo not withstanding, deprives the victim as well as his partner of quite a lot of longer-term, slower-to-develop, deeper sensations and eventual orgasms. And even when I was experiencing prematurity with some partners there were others with whom I never came at all either because of fit, or degrees of lubrication, or how they would grind into the relatively sensation-free upper length instead of the highly sensitized bottom or sides of my cock.

But…

Then…

So if with just a little masturbatory habit-formation men as well as women can learn to have better orgasms without intercourse, and if vaginal intercourse is, on aggregate, the highest risk activity as far as pregnancy and social/sexual disease transmission (funny how the CDC never reports “honeymoon cystitis” as a sexually-transmitted disease even though it’s caused primarily by intercourse), then…

Part C: Recommendation

Why not make the heads of the Abstinence-Only/True-love-Waits/Virginity-Pledge/social-control-through-sexual-scarcity crowds explode (not to mention the heads of their minority-viewpoint “all heterosexual intercourse is rape” bedfellows) by recommending that young heterosexuals not bother with intercourse till marriage. Oh, heck, not to bother even after marriage except for procreation!

But not to avoid it because intercourse is precious, or special, or the seat of sexual oppression but because…

...once you strip away all its socially-constructed significance intercourse is actually kind of boring compared to all the other things one or more people can do with each other!

If Your Hymen Is Duct Tape Then Who's the Garbage Can?

So you may or may not have seen this “public service” video illustrating a standard abstinence-only device…

Jessica Valenti of Feministing has a perfectly reasonable reaction:

Okay, I’m well aware that this “PSA” was probably made for some class project, but I really think it shows how frigging bizarre (and dangerous) abstinence-only classes are. I mean, fucking duct tape? I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that of the many places the slutty piece of tape gets stuck, a garbage can is shown multiple times. (Just in case you didn’t get the sex-is-dirty message clearly enough.) After all, there’s nothing worse than trashy, whorey, adhesives.

She said it here.

I’d like to share her objection and add my own.

See, my New Year’s blogging resolution has been to point out just how much conservatives, “traditionalists,” and all-round anti-feminists despise men! So what better place to point out that if they’re proposing duct tape as a metaphor for virginal women then WTF does the filthy, disgusting, slimy, disease-laden, virginity-sullying garbage can in the video represent?

Even with our eyes closed we can tell they don’t like women. What’s bizarre is that once we do open our eyes we see how much they detest men.

The miracle is that they get so many of us, so many men, to believe feminists are the problem! Weird huh?

Need Help With Arithmetic For A Good Cause

Ok, so according to the (randomly Googled) National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy roughly one out of three teenage girls become pregnant before age 20.

And according to The U.S. Census Bureau, in 2006 there were roughly forty million girls under the age of 20.

Put it all together and, at least at projected rates, thirteen million of them will be, have been or currently are pregnant.

The teen pregnancy group also says birth rates for U.S. girls age 15-19 rose to 41.9 per 1000 in 2006. The U.S. Census says there were roughly 10,389,322 U.S. girls age 15-19. Put it all together and 435,300 teenage girls gave birth this year.

One of them has a TV show and cut a million-dollar deal with a “celebrity” gossip magazine to talk about it. At that rate, if the “celebrity” gossip magazine wanted to get each pregnant teenager’s story it would have to pay what? $43.5 billion? Something like that anyway. But I digress.

The partner of the soon-to-be-millionaire pregnant child is himself a legal adult.

The partners of nearly all the other 435,299 girls 15-19 who gave birth this year were adults as well.

Social conservatives, “traditional values” activists, and anti-feminists all believe it’s the 15-19-year-old girl’s fault they got pregnant. Rather than their 18-67-year-old partner’s fault because…

...um

...you can’t expect grownups to act responsibly?

...if you were a man you’d tap that too?

...you can’t blame men because they have sex drives but girls never get horny and therefore have sex only after careful consideration?

...we go to all that trouble to spend $143,000,000 on abstinence-only curriculum that focus almost entirely on girls without wasting so much as a penny of it on education for boys and therefore we expect girls to be a little more grateful?

...they’re sluts?

Sausage making at it's worst

According to DailyKos’s dkosopedia.com, Germany’s Otto Von Bismark said “Laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made.” In America it’s more commonly attributed to one of the more famously, um, pragmatic 20th Century appropriations committee chairs.

I understand what they mean. Even with the most rigid party discipline and the most sizable majorities, crafting legislation is an extraordinarily complex coalition-building dance. Where, since the sausage-making metaphor is appallingly apt, the dancers are running around with gruesomely cut-up parts of animals most people wouldn’t cook for company.

And so I’ve understood the logic in the past for the House of Representatives allocating money for abstinence-only education as a way to prevent unrest from vulnerable rural Democrats, as a way to build bridges and/or keep Republicans from gumming up the works in the face of too-slim majorities, as a way to build veto-proof majorities in the face of a President who pretty clearly got Ds in college only because his professors didn’t want him to repeat their courses. And I’ve understood the not-that-well-understood rationale that once crap like that gets to the Senate, or to the House/Senate reconciliation committees, a lot of it gets ironed out anyway. And I understand this rationale, and I understand that rationale but past a certain point stuff like this…

Dems Finalize Massive Increase for Ab-Only
by James Wagoner

Today, the Democratic controlled Labor HHS Appropriations conference committee report includes the full increase requested by President Bush for abstinence-only programs. Let’s call that what it is: a stunning disgrace.

Source: RH Reality Check

... gets to be a little much. $141,000,000 isn’t just a heck of a lot of money. It’s more than the Republicans allocated even when their corrupt, scummy syndicate was at it’s most powerful!

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon correctly points out one problem with

As James Wagoner notes, abstinence-only is no boondoggle lark, but a very serious threat to public health. Discouraging kids from using condoms—ever—not only puts teenage girls at risk of getting pregnant, but it’s bound to cost lives. A big way that abstinence-only educators try to convince kids to ride bareback is to tell them that HIV seeps through condoms. Read: So when you fuck, don’t bother using them. Which means that there are going to be a lot of kids regularly taking the risk of exposure to HIV. And it’s not like the anti-protection lesson stays with you only through high school; the “don’t wrap up” message plagues many people throughout adulthood and hurts their contraception use.

She said it here.

At least when this bill was originally getting markups and this story first broke we heard that this funding was a bone thrown after appropriations for real sex education were doubled and quadrupled. Whatever happened to that story? It would make a little difference if it turned out to still be true.)

But even then the impact on public health represents only the practical, humanitarian side of the problem. Yes I’m aware that sounds ironic. Sadly it’s not because nearly every penny of that $141,000,000 amounts to foundation grants (a.k.a. non-profit corporate welfare) for thousands of individuals in dozens of organizations that by their very nature reject everything even the conservative-to-moderate Democrats like committee chairman David Obey who off-handedly passed this appropriation stand for.

In other words forking over money for the ugly Republican thugs who man (and I do mean man) these organizations the Democrats aren’t just insulting their base, aren’t just abandoning social justice, aren’t just endangering future generations, they’re arming the enemy with jobs, computers, offices, conferences, mailing lists, resumes, and, worse, a captive audience from which to recruit the next generation of David Viters’s and Richard Curtis’s who they will then support both overtly and covertly to run against decent, progressive Democrats.

In other words it’s not just America’s children that would be better of if this funding item were struck from the bill, and not only would America be better off, but the Democratic majority would be better off!

So WTF, dudes? Make sausage if you must but why fatten the bad guys with it?

Senator Vitters, escort services, and abstinence-only policies

J. Goodrich of TAPPED raises a good question about when or whether it’s appropriate to discuss people’s sexual proclivities.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter has come clean about once having been a client of a Washington D.C. escort service…

I don’t usually write about politicians’ private lives or family members as those are none of my business. So why the deviation from that rule in this post? Because of the policies Senator Vitter has supported. He is a fervent defender of the traditional marriage and also an advocate of abstinence-only policies…

Taken together, Vitter’s support for abstinence outside marriage and his defense of the traditional heterosexual marriage might mean that gays and lesbians in his ideal world would have to practice life-long celibacy. To expect that of others and yet to fail (most likely more than once) with the much smaller challenge of marital fidelity makes Vitter into either a hypocrite or an unrealistic policy-maker. Or both.

Read the non-excerpted version of Goodrich’s post here.

I think it’s fine to give people a pass on their peccadilloes, but only if their behavior has no bearing on policy.

The scandal about Senator Vitter and previous escort customer Randall Tobias is not that they were married men hiring escorts. The scandal is that they were unable to conform to abstinence-only, anti-prostitution, and anti-infidelity policies even though they were knowledgeable about and responsible for implementing those policies!

If abstinence-only policies don’t work for Vitters or Tobias then they’re bad policies! That’s the scandal. And that’s where it’s not just appropriate but pretty responsible for the non-yellow press to dig it out.

Bottom line: if one thinks this is a sex scandal yeah, one probably shouldn’t write about it because generally one would be missing the real scandal.

[Other links on this topic: Contradictions vs. hypocrisy, prostitution and propriety; It’s still not about the hypocrisy, it’s about the program —fl]

Syndicate content