Wednesday May 23, 2012
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the way that social scientists talk about sexual activity and sexual risk. I understand that when you are trying to make change at the level of a population making generalizations and grouping people is a necessity. And I suppose it's a lot to ask people to be constantly qualifying what they are saying in order to make it more precise, but the alternative is talking in a way that may be statistically accurate, but fails to reflect the lives we live.
For example, when most people in sexual health talk about sexual risk and STDs they will talk about activities which put you at a higher risk for giving or getting a sexually transmitted disease. Sometimes these activities are specific, and accurate, like unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse, unprotected oral sex, or sharing needles. And sometimes they aren't, like having multiple partners or using sex toys.
While it's true that having multiple sexual partners exposes you to more potential risk simply by exposing you to more bodies, what isn't true is that the fact of having multiple partners in and of itself exposes any given individual to greater risk of contracting an STD when compared to someone who only has one partner. If the person who has multiple partners is practices safer sex more often and more conscientiously, if they take better overall care of their health, and if they have more direct and honest communication with partners and health care providers than someone who only has one sexual partner, then the person with more partners may actually be at less risk. Especially since we know that people who are monogamous aren't actually always monogamous. They just don't talk about it.
Which brings me to a recent, and very preliminary study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, "Unfaithful Individuals are Less Likely to Practice Safer Sex Than Openly Nonmonogamous Individuals." As the title suggests, the study, which was conducted entirely online and surveyed 308 people in monogamous relationships (where nonetheless one partner had sex with someone outside the relationship) and 493 people who identified themselves as being in openly non-monogamous relationships, compared those who went outside the relationship for sex dishonestly with those who do so honestly, to see how the two groups compared on things like condom and other contraception use, getting screened for STIs, and communicating with a partner about the sex that was happening outside of the primary relationship.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that those in open non-monogamous relationships scored higher across the board. They use condoms more, they get tested for STIs more, they clean and/or use condoms on the sex toys they use with partners, AND they are more open with their partners when they have in fact had sex outside the relationship.
All behaviors that lead to reduced risk of STI transmission, to say nothing of reduced risk of feeling lied to and ripped off.
The research has lots of limitations. The sample was self-selected, almost entirely white, and the only thing really measured here is what people reported they did. But it's an interesting start, and a useful piece of research to have to remind all of us that behaviors that some of us might find socially or morally objectionable (like non-monogamy, polyamory, swinging, etc...) are not in and of themselves always bad for us. And some of the ways we describe ourselves which are meant to make us sound like good people (i.e. monogamous) don't always mean that we're behaving in ways that are good for us or the people we have sex with.
Related - How Common Is Infidelity? ; What Counts as Cheating? ; If You Cheat Do You Tell?
Source:
Conley, T.D., Moors, A.C., Ziegler, A., Karathanasis, C. "Unfaithful Individuals are Less Likely to Practice Safer Sex Than Openly Nonmonogamous Individuals" Journal of Sexual Medicine 2012 Mar 29. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02712.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Monday May 21, 2012
One of my favorite parts of blogging for National Masturbation Month is writing about masturbation scenes in mainstream movies. Six years ago when I began this blog I had a list of 15 or 20 films notable for their representation of the sex act that may only be spoken of in giggles and whispers: sex with yourself.
Thanks to our eagle eye readers the list has blown up, last time I checked topping 47 films from 1972 to 2010. If you haven't check it out, have a look. It might inspire you to go back and see some of these old films (or see them again).
And if you have a favorite scene that isn't on the list, let me know, I'll add it so everyone can enjoy.
Read More: Masturbation Scenes in Mainstream Movies
Wednesday May 16, 2012
May 19th is Armed Services Day (also called Armed Forces Day but I'll mention both since it's not clear who is winning that pr battle). Growing up in a big Canadian city my relationship to the military was simple. I didn't know anyone who was in the military. And the story is that my grandfather enlisted prior to the Second World War but never made it out of basic training because he had flat feet. The regiment that he was scheduled to be with did go to Europe and none of the service members in that regiment made it home alive. If not for his flat feet, none of us would have been born.
If you don't know anyone who has served in the military, and especially if you don't know anyone who has been deployed to a war zone, it's easy to think about service in black and white terms. I've met many who believe that the best way to support the troops is to question nothing and offer nationalistic platitudes till the cows come home. And I've met people who aren't able to see service members as humans deserving of the same rights and justice as the rest of us. There aren't a lot of folks in the middle.
Which is too bad since I bet a lot of service members would put themselves there. And I wonder, based on my very limited experience, how well equipped those of us who haven't served in the military are to offer the kind of support service members actually need. I worry that we aren't very well equipped at all. That we are failing.
Which brings me to an Armed Services Day promotion I came across. Some online pharmacy that specializes in "lifestyle drugs" (read: drugs for sexual functioning like Viagra, Cialis, Levitra) is recognizing the "service and sacrifice" of service members past and present by offering them $15 off their order of sex drugs on May 19th.
The truth is that service members are often un- and underemployed, and $15 off is $15 off, so it's hard to say "this is terrible and shouldn't happen". But it feels right to say "this is terrible". Service members get so little support with post-combat sexual health issues and the rates of sexual assault and suicide are so high, that I think it's fair to say this kind of shameless drug marketing simply doesn't have a place in any thoughtful consideration of what we might want to be thinking about on May 19th. And even though some might benefit from the discount, I have a hard time thinking of it as support in any meaningful way.
Monday May 14, 2012
An article in the Times last week raised the complicated issue of talking with children about pornography. It was nice to see it there since it's been a reality for parents for years. Companies that make Internet connected technology (mobile devices, tablets, and old school computers) are increasingly marketing the devices as something suitable for young children. And plenty of parents agree.
But along with the free access to thousands of hours of kid friendly videos (thanks YouTube) and cool apps that turn classic kid's books into animated worlds of wonder, comes access to unwanted and inappropriate sexually explicit material, and pornography.
Filters don't do the job. And the always filter out plenty of important, age approriate, sex education material. The kind of material that can make it easier for parents and children to navigate sex education together.
The article describes several parents and their approach to the topic, ranging in degrees of openness to talking, and willingness to acknowledge that while pornography isn't appropriate material for children, sexuality and sexual health are topics that can and should be talked about. Some of the framing is off. Like the idea that teaching about sex is a series of discrete conversations, and all parents have to do now is add porn to the list.
But more than the article, I appreciated the accompanying piece which they call an "interactive feature" (I'm not sure what to call it, not exactly journalism, not exactly educational material, but the Times is producing more and more of it in an effort to get readers to stay on their pages).
In this feature the writer provides a more detailed description of each parent's response to the situation they found themselves in, and then they asked the two sexuality professionals who were quoted in the article to weigh in on the parents responses.
Something that stuck with me had to do with how we explain to children that pornography isn't appropriate for them. Saying "it's for adults" might be enough for some kids, but many, certainly older, kids will want to know more. Embedded in the answer is the assumption that you get to an age when you can comprehend the material and then it's "appropriate" or "safe" for you to see it? But what age is that?
I don't have an answer but I'm pretty sure it isn't a chronological age at all. I think it might be something along the lines of what Marty Klein (one of the professionals who is quoted in the article) calls "pornography literacy". The idea that what is most harmful about legal pornography is not what it depicts, but what we do with it in the absence of decent sex education and media literacy skills. It's an interesting question and one I'm glad the Times is raising.
NYTimes.com: When Children See Internet Pornography
For Parents: How to Talk With Your Kids About Pornography
For Educators: BISH Training - Working With Young People Around Porn
