Northern Territory Legislates Consensual Teen Sex

Via Queen Emily comes this story out of the Northern Territory, Australia.  The government has decided to enact a law that forces anyone — from doctors to parents — to report any any sexual activity taking place among those who are under the age of 16. Because that sex is always illegal.  Regardless of consent.  Emphasis mine:

The Northern Territory Government says its Care and Protection of Children Act is all about keeping kids safe.

But the AMA is warning the act’s mandatory reporting requirements go too far and Dr Paul Bauert from the AMA’s Northern Territory branch is deeply concerned.

Until now, NT laws were similar to what operates in the other states; it was mandatory to report suspected child sexual abuse.

But now health workers must report sexual activity among under-16s to a team that includes police and staff in the Territory’s department of health and families.

Failure to do so could result in a fine of up to around $20,000. And it is not just doctors who will have to report.

“This applies to everybody,” Dr Bauert said. “Parents, brothers and sisters, mates.”

The legislation has been in place for months but it was only late last week that the Northern Territory Health Department told staff to comply.

They were told to report anyone under 16 who is sexually active, even if that person’s sexual partner is also under 16 or of the same age, and regardless of consent.

“Any person who has sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16 is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 16 years,” Dr Bauert said.

Yes, you read all of that correctly.  Teenagers who have sex with each other are now facing potential imprisonment of up to 16 years.  The thing is, we’re not even talking about where statutory rape laws ought to draw the line, and whether or not there should be “Romeo and Juliet” clauses, etc.

No, we’re talking about the possibility of two consenting 15-year-olds facing jail time for “raping” each other.  Way to trivialize actual fucking rape.  And we’re talking about parents facing huge fines if they know about that sexual activity and don’t report their own children.  And we’re talking doctors who can’t give out factual and needed sexual health care without having to report their patients to the police.

Missing the Point on Teen “Sexting” Cases

You’ve probably seen a lot of media coverage lately around the phenomenon of teenagers sending nude or otherwise sexual pictures of themselves to each other, and the fact that a lot of parents, and more notably law enforcement officials, are really freaking out about it.

It wasn’t so long ago that I wrote about an outrageous case where a 15-year-old was arrested on child pornography charges for taking nude photographs of herself.  But these types of stories have since really taken off; and they’re even calling it “sexting” now, because what would a story about teenagers and sex be without more ways to make it inappropriately tantalizing?

Of course, the media seems to be taking notice not to talk about how girls are being exploited by law enforcement, and often the (usually) boys who they sent the photos to, but about how girls are Teh Slutty for taking pictures of themselves, and how poor boys are being punished for getting caught up in Teh Slutty themselves.  Like here at CNN, and in Thomas’ response to the article at the Yes Means Yes blog:

This article is not perfect, but it makes two really good points: First, that this is wildly and willfully excessive.

Should Phillip be punished? Yes. Should the six teens in Pennsylvania face consequences? Yes. But let’s kick them off cheerleading squads and sports teams. Make them do community service and take classes on sex crimes. Educate other teens on the dangers of sexting. Pay a price, yes, but these young people shouldn’t pay for this for the rest of their lives.

Second, that this ought to be a wake-up call that teen sexuality will develop, and that parents have a responsibility to shape it, which they cannot do by ignoring it

Now, what Thomas does here, again, is not new.  In the original article I wrote about, this issue also came up — the case of a girl taking photos of herself was compared with a case of a boy spreading photos of an ex-girlfriend without her consent.  And, in fact, he’s only agreeing with someone else presenting the problem.  So I could be accused of picking on Thomas here, but this upsets me precisely because I like Thomas, and because he wrote a really intelligent, much longer post on this topic recently.

This most recent post, on the other hand, totally misses the mark.  As Elizabeth says about a different but similar article: “it treats teens sending revealing pictures of themselves and teens sending revealing pictures of others without permission as if they were equivalent acts.”  And they’re fucking not.

Real Sex Education Gets a Chance

I could not have possibly been more excited when I saw this article about the handful of sex-positive sex education courses taking place around the country:

The photos were a small piece of a yearlong sexuality education program called Our Whole Lives, or OWL. A joint effort by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, OWL aims to help teens understand sexuality. As Detwiler recalls the sessions of three years ago, the pictures demonstrating what sexual intercourse looks like were “shocking to kids, but also helpful. It helped them to grasp another dimension of sexuality.” So did the frank discussions about dating norms, the chance to pass around condoms, and informal conversation about the way sex is portrayed in magazines, movies, and music. OWL is among a handful of sex-ed programs that take a position more radical than it may, at first, sound: namely, that sexuality education should actually talk about sex. While events like the spike in teen pregnancies in Gloucester last year or the bulging bellies of youthful pop stars (or Alaskan first daughters) can prompt outcries for better sex ed, most of what we call “sex education” is really about preventing the bad stuff. As one Newton teacher puts it, “It’s all been reduced to two issues: teen pregnancy and STDs. That’s all really important, but I feel we’re losing other important things.”

With US sex education heading into its second century, some educators are suggesting that sex ed can, and should, be about more than just all the things that can go wrong, that adults need to do more than robotically recite statistics about condom failure or the merits of abstinence. This new approach, almost too small to be called a movement, exists largely outside the public schools, but it’s a new twist in a debate that often gets bogged down in finger-pointing and name-calling. The “sex is good” mentality involves talking frankly to teens about sexual pleasure and about when and how to achieve it safely. It means focusing less on whether kids have had vaginal intercourse, and acknowledging that teens (like adults) will engage in a variety of sexual experiences. It’s an approach that might make some grown-ups uncomfortable, but it’s exactly what sex ed needs if it’s ever going to grow up.

*Hops up and down* This is what I’ve been suggesting!  For so long!  It’s the kind of sex education I’ve written about extensively here, and in my essay for Yes Means Yes.  Someone — in the U.S.! — is actually doing it!

Premarital Sex: Just Like Juggling Machetes Over a 12-Year-Old

Meet Derek Dye. Derek Dye is a clown.  Yes, a clown.  A clown who teaches abstinence-only education to middle-schoolers.

Seriously.

Watch the video below.  Really, you must.  Because there’s nothing like clown tricks set to inspirational music.

My first thought is: middle-schoolers are interested in clowns now?  Even clowns that don’t have big red noses?

My second thought is: well at least abstinence-only education now has the kind of spokesperson it deserves.

The problem, though, is that this actually isn’t a laughing matter.  It’s not a laughing matter because Derek Dye’s “work” — that compares drug abuse with sexual activity, and says that engaging in sexual activity with a condom outside the confines of a committed heterosexual marriage is equivalent to juggling machetes over another human being — is being funded with federal dollars.  (In fact, Dye’s employer, the Elizabeth New Life Center, has received an $800,000 Community-Based Abstinence Education Grant.) And it’s not a laughing matter because instead of getting real sex education, kids are receiving this bullshit at a really crucial juncture in their lives.

For the most part, I think that kids are smart enough to not take advice from someone who is literally a clown.  But I still think that delivering these dangerous messages, no matter where they’re coming from, has a negative impact — especially when they are invariably the only messages kids receive from their school.  So these young teens might not believe the clown (at least I certainly hope not) when he says that having sex will completely ruin their lives.  But that’s not going to teach them how to put on a condom.  And when they don’t know how to put on condoms, and instead contract STDs and become pregnant, Derek Dye’s prophecy is just all that more likely to come true, now isn’t it?

One last note: I think the thing that frightened me most about Dye’s message is his extreme warnings over risk.  Taking risks is dangerous, he tell us.  And dangerous is bad.

But since when did this become so?  Surely, some risks are stupid.  Driving drunk is very stupid.  Having unprotected sex when you’re not looking to become pregnant (and have the option for protection) is stupid.  Playing Russian Roulette is stupid.  But without risk, we see no gain.  Every good thing in my life is the result of risk.  The risk of starting this blog and having it hated, the risk of starting a relationship with my husband and having him reject me, and so on.

So what kind of message is it for kids, to tell them that taking risks will only ruin them?  How is it anything other than utterly irresponsible to teach them this, rather than how to identify and assess risks worth taking versus those that are not?  And how are our schools teaching them to view sexuality, when virtually all sex goes right at the top of the humongous list of always unconscionable risks?

Strip Club Holds Sarah Palin Lookalike Contest

Via Sociological Images — a truly great blog I discovered recently — comes this story about a Sarah Palin lookalike contest held at Vegas strip club (oh, sorry, “gentleman’s club”).  Lots of bikinis, sexualized use of guns and sexism abound.  You can view more photographs of the event here.

The saddest thing is that it’s not the most offensive display of sexualized misogyny that has been directed a Palin.  The sex doll came close, but I’d say that award goes “Nailin’ Paylin,” the Larry Flint pornographic film starring yet another Palin lookalike, the existence of which all of us should have seen coming.

There are two problems with both the porn film and this strip club contest, and neither one of them is about porn and stripping in general.  The first issue is consent.  Sarah Palin did not consent to having her image used in this way.  Portraying her sexually like this without her consent is a violation — and contrary to what many people apparently think, existing as a woman in public is not the same as consenting to use of your body as public property.  This isn’t satire or parody; it’s just sexist and degrading.

Purity Rings: Because Not Everyone Wants To Be a Slut

While I agree that it wasn’t in the world’s best taste for VMA host Russell Brand to mock the Jonas Brothers’ purity rings — I turned the show off 10 minutes in when he started making jokes about Joe Jackson beating Michael and his siblings with a belt (haha) — I think that Jordin Sparks’ response ended up offending me a lot more:

While introducing T.I.’s bit, “American Idol” winner Jordin Sparks stuck up for the brothers.

“I just have one thing to say; one thing about promise rings. It’s not bad to wear promise rings because not every guy or girl wants to be a slut,” said Sparks, who reportedly wears one as well.

Hmm. Maybe a better response would have been something about how it’s not bad to wear promise rings because . . . I don’t know, everyone gets to make their own choices? Sexual choices are personal and we all have a right to them? Because the Jonas Brothers (to the best of my knowledge) aren’t trying to push their beliefs on anyone else?  Or maybe even something more witty like “Russell, leave the Jonas Brothers’ purity rings alone, and I’m sure that they won’t pass comment on that haircut.”

I don’t know. It might have been a better, more mature, less puritanical and more feminist defense than “oh yeah, well at least I’m not a slut.”  Especially because regardless of how much she qualifies her statement by adding “guys” in there, “slut” is still a highly misogynistic term.  And our goal shouldn’t be to make it an equal opportunity sexual insult.

This is, of course, the real problem with purity rings.  It’s not the personal commitment to virginity.  It’s that instead of being some kind of personal reminder to that commitment, as they are supposed to be, purity rings tend to be more of an “I’m better than you” social statement.  You see, I haven’t got the slightest problem whatsoever with virginity and celibacy when made as a free and personal choice, until that is people who are virgins and/or celibate try to rub their choices in the faces of the rest of us as proof of how very evolved they are, and how the rest of us are all sex addicts with no self respect, humping each other on a one-way train to hell. 

(And honestly, I have difficulty holding it personally against 18-year-old Sparks when she probably went through abstinence-only education that compares not vowing virginity until marriage to being a used piece of tape. I hold it against the authority figures who feed this stuff to teenagers, and will only really hold it against Sparks personally if she’s still spouting this crap after living a few years in the adult world and being exposed to different ideas.)

This is all very simple, but clearly it bears repeating: Not wearing a purity ring does not make one a “slut.”  Having sex does not make one a “slut.”  And “slut” is a term that we should abolish anyway, because it serves no purpose other than shaming people — particularly women — for their sexual choices.  Condemning other people’s sexual choices in order to defend your own is always in bad taste — no matter what those sexual choices are.

Offensive Remark of the Week: Bill O’Reilly is Getting Desperate Edition

You may have seen Planned Parenthood’s new ad with John McCain staring uncomfortably and helplessly for 8 full seconds when asked about whether or not health insurance should have to cover birth control if it covers Viagra. And of course, they would have been inexcusably negligent to not produce such an ad — McCain handed us gold there.

Well Bill O’Reilly is very displeased that someone is trying to take away the male right to have sex when clearly it was something only ever intended to apply to women. (Bill O’Reilly only supports straight sex, but this contradiction has been overlooked for centuries now.) See the video, with key transcript below:

“Viagra is used to control a medical condition; that’s why it’s covered. Birth control is not a medical condition. It’s a choice. Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for other people’s choices? [very irrately] Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control? Give me and every other taxpayer a break, Planned Parenthood.”

Oh my. Check that shit out. Bill O’Reilly not only managed to argue that penises have inalienable rights but vaginas don’t, he also managed to call women gold-digging whores. The clear anger and frustration he was expressing as he made the “dinner” remark, though, makes me think that he might have a personal axe to grind.

Men: Still Trying. Oh How They Try!

You know who I’ve decided that I absolutely can’t stand?  Brian Alexander, the sex advice columnist over at MSNBC.  I’m not actively seeking out the guy’s writing, but it seems to keep finding me.  Recently, I called him out on being a rape apologist asshole.  By comparison, his latest offense is rather minor, but it’s still sexist and obnoxious as hell.  This is a question and answer from a column last week:

Q: Do men really care if the woman has an orgasm or not?

A: There is something almost existential about this question, like, “Is there really a merciful God?” or “Will Mick Jagger ever retire?”

I am here to ease your angst, and not just because I’m a man, but because I think it’s true. Not true for all men, of course, but I’d bet most of us do care and, like Boy Scouts, we strive to do our best.

Data from the most comprehensive survey of the nation’s sex life, “The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States,” showed that roughly one-third of women surveyed said they ALWAYS had an orgasm with their male partner. Not sometimes, or most of the time, but always. These numbers are even more impressive when you consider that many women report that due to some physiological or psychological barrier they rarely or never orgasm even if the guy is working like a Spartan. Then realize that the survey’s data was collected nearly a generation ago — before the explosion of porn in every possible form of media made fiery female orgasms the (completely unrealistic) standard, and before giving great oral sex became a datability requirement akin to having a job.

Even if you don’t trust our altruism, consider our egos. Many, many reader letters to this column come from women asking how they can soothe their men’s wounded pride over the women’s trouble reaching orgasm.

We care.

Oh Jesus Christ, where to start?

On Aging and The Right to Sex

I just found this article via Amber Rhea, and it broke my heart.  It’s about an 82-year-old woman and 95-year-old man (called “Dorothy” and “Bob”) who met in an assisted living facility and became romantically involved.  Both had dementia.  And everyone thought that their romance was all very cute and lovely . . . until the two of them started having sex.

Because both Bob and Dorothy suffer from dementia, the son assumed that his father didn’t fully understand what was going on. And his sputtering cell phone call reporting the scene he’d happened upon would have been funny, the manager said, if the consequences hadn’t been so serious. “He was going, ‘She had her mouth on my dad’s penis! And it’s not even clean!’ ” Bob’s son became determined to keep the two apart and asked the facility’s staff to ensure that they were never left alone together.

After that, Dorothy stopped eating. She lost 21 pounds, was treated for depression, and was hospitalized for dehydration. When Bob was finally moved out of the facility in January, she sat in the window for weeks waiting for him. She doesn’t do that anymore, though: “Her Alzheimer’s is protecting her at this point,” says her doctor, who thinks the loss might have killed her if its memory hadn’t faded so mercifully fast.

But should someone have protected the couple’s right to privacy—their right to have a sex life?

For me, the answer seems like an obvious “yes.”  It was believed by Dorothy’s family and the caretakers at the assisted living facility that the two of them were very much in love.  And even more than that, I feel that everyone has a right to sex, albeit one that stops at another person’s right to not have sex.  I don’t feel that’s something that ends with old age or with disability.

Now Ladies, Science Says That Sex is Bad, Mmmkay?

I don’t know why the hell I even bother getting angry anymore, but Jesus Fucking Christ do I hate the media.

There’s some new study on sex and different male and female perceptions towards it (cue groans).  It’s about casual sex.  What kind of headlines is it prompting?  Ones like these:

Women Have Not Adapted To Casual Sex, Research Shows; Casual sex rates low for many women; The one-night stand blues: How girls are left to regret brief encounters; and my favorite, Men like casual sex more than women – scientific fact

Anyone want to guess why this pisses me off?  Probably because, oops!, that’s not what the fucking study says.