A lot has been said about the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill. I went to an interesting event hosted by my college (shout out to College of Charleston Women's and Gender Studies program!) that featured women who were among the first generation to take the birth control pill and who performed activism during the time of Roe v. Wade. A few of their remarks have stuck with me.

1. The pill gave women economic freedom first and foremost. I think we frequently forget this now, when the pill is perceived as way to have more "sexual freedom" by it's advocates and detractors. The accessibility of birth control to me doesn't immediately register with me as a factor in my relative economic freedom. The pill allowed women to stay in the workforce instead of leaving to have children, or to remove economic burden from their husbands, if they were married.

2. The pill was already widely used before the FDA approved it. I think this point illustrates that  establishments aren't always keeping up with the needs of women and their families.

3. While all the women on the panel were smart, savy, even funny, I was disappointed when they expressed their dismay over the "lack of youth activism" surrounding reproductive rights today. First, they were making the mistake of comparing college aged students' involvement with their invovlement in a movement when they were in their 30s or 40s. Older women have way more resources and fewer obstacles to their involvement in whatever cause they choose to adopt. Second, they just don't realize how many young people are advocating for reproductive freedom today! They don't realize that the tactics and methods of activists today are really, really different from those of past activists. For example, take the amplify blog! Take all the videos South Carolina Youth Activists are making, or the campaigns for increased condom access.

I've watched a lot of 16 and Pregnant  - who hasn't? I've watched it with my roommates, with my boyfriend, and even with pregnant teenagers. Even though every story is basically the same, I can't turn it off. This is partly because it beats Bravo reruns of The Real Housewives, but the other major appeal is that it gives me feminist food for thought. So, in a somewhat disjointed list, here are my thoughts on MTV's 16 and Pregnant

1. While we always get enough back story on the mom-to-be, the father-to-be, and what their lives were like pre-baby, I hate that the story isn't presented within the context of contraception failure! If the teens address their understanding of contraception or general sex health knowledge, it is usually only in passing.

2. Abortion? Sma-smortion? It is almost never mentioned. While these women are free to choose to carry their pregnancies to term and I respect their decision, I wonder why MTV hasn't documented someone considering abortion. Is there an episode in which this happens that I've missed? Let me know in the comments.

3. The reunion specials really bother me because Dr. Drew does all the talking - literally, he never lets them get a word in! And I think the show actually does serve the women well in the sense that it gives them a voice, the reunion specials do not provide the same opportunity. Instead, they just let the host do all of the talking.

Disclaimer:  I wrote this post awhile back, right after this SNL aired, and then I completely forgot about posting it to amplify. So excuse the untimeliness of it, hope it still makes you giggle/think.

<object height="296" width="512"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/nlb_a9NK8HIwCjH2ZRrFDw">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/nlb_a9NK8HIwCjH2ZRrFDw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="296" width="512"></embed></object>

This skit was incredibly random, yes, and not really that funny, but it caused my friends to turn to me and say "Today Sponge? What's that all about? Do those still exist? Weren't they on Seinfeld once?"

And I said "YES! They do exist, they are filled with spermicide, they were on Seinfeld, and I've previously made a video about them!"

<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YJ0OLlUUFLw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YJ0OLlUUFLw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>

The Today Sponge <a href="http://www.todaysponge.com/about.html">website</a> actually has really good information on it that does correct some of the inaccuracies (for the sake of humor.. or attempts at humor) in the SNL skit. One important point: it is only 89-91% effective, so this option might not be for everyone!

I also loved the sketch right before the Sponge skit - it skewers the way home alarm companies prey on women's fears in their advertising.

<object height="296" width="512"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Mbnto58AYxv1_TEQLqo1vA">
</param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
</param>
<embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Mbnto58AYxv1_TEQLqo1vA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

Break the Cycle, a group that works to end domestic violence by empowering young people, reports that South Carolina receives an F in State Law to help victims of teen dating violence. Our state failed automatically because, apparently, people in dating relationships cannot obtain Orders of Protection against their partner.

Are you kidding me???

It never will cease to amaze me that South Carolina fails practically every evaluation of its services and protection of youth. For comparison, I looked at Louisiana and DC. Louisiana made a C: their laws do not explicitly outline elements of obtaining a Protection Order and minors have very limited access to "sensitive services" that victims might need, like contraceptive access. However, they do allow people in dating relationships to receive these orders. DC makes an A: the group does think they can improve by eliminating more of their parental notification laws.

cross posted at typical leigh

Researchers have recently uncovered a survey of Victorian women's thoughts on sex. While only 45 surveys were completed between 1892 and 1920, they are apparently rich documents that prove that these women, who lived in an age that prized modesty and chastity, were sexual creatures who even thought about contraception. There are lots of interesting historical tid-bits that I won't talk about here, so go read the article for yourself. What I want to talk about is that this is supposed to be news, how the media reacts to this sort of research.

While the existence of these documents certainly is exciting for history buffs and academics, I can't help but question what contemporary interest in these documents really means. A Telegraph article on the surveys is titled "Victorian-era women enjoyed making love, according to earliest sex survey." Maybe you don't know a lot about Victorian era history, and I don't really either, but I can generally say that it was a time that placed a lot of emphasis on manners, etiquette, and doing what was "proper." Apparently, these cultural values should have made these women asexual. Note, nothing is said about how this cultural climate impacted men's sexuality, but I can guess that the assumption is that men's sexuality is such an unwavering force that there could be no limits on it. Of course the double standard existed then too!

To have a healthy attitude about sex, you can't make assumptions about how "sexual" people are based on their outward appearance, their upbringings, and their values. Sexuality is a part of everyone in some way, and questioning whether or not a person is sexual, or being surprised when they are, promotes this gate-keeper mentality that is so unhealthy. I don't mean to question whether or not sexuality has changed throughout time and from culture to culture, but I do want to question why the media expects us to be so shocked by Victorian ladies' sexuality (or women's sexuality, or men's sexuality, or older people's sexuality, or youth's sexuality!).

cross-posted at typical leigh

Making a video about female and male condoms makes me think about the big contraception picture. It makes me want to go out on a limb and ask crazy questions about birth control in general. Well, really, there's only one question. Why is it that almost all forms of birth control are things that women have to take, things that women have to put in or do to their bodies? Sure, men can 1. wear male condoms or 2. have vasectomies. But for women the options are endless! Pills, rings, sponges, film, foam, IUD, tubal ligation, diaprhrams, and female condoms. Women don't even have equal political representation in the federal or state governments, which creates the policies that regulate the availability of health knowledge and contraception. It isn't that I'm not grateful for the science and research that led to the creation of hormonal birth control or any of the other methods for that matter. It's just that the science points to the greater division of labor in the world: it's the job of women to worry about reproduction and children. And so I guess the scientific research followed the direction of society. I wish that either society or science would change, and work on making men feel equally invested in contraception.

cross posted at typical leigh

 

National Condom Awareness week has just past us! Woohoo! I hope everyone has been safe, wrapping it up, and, well, lubing it up.

YES.

I just said LUBE.

If you didn't just faint from embarrassment at the thought of lube, congratulations! A lot of people are stand off-ish about lube. They perceive it as something for old people, who just aren't as sexy as young people. They think using lube is an admission that they aren't "into it" or "really feeling it." I have had friends tell me they can't imagine ever using it, that they would be distraught if someone suggested it. Honestly, I feel bad for these people, because I've also had friends who have raved about lube. (YES, people under 80 use lube!) It helps get things going, makes condoms less likely to break or tear, and reduces the bad kind of friction. Lube is fun and safe, so it makes perfect since that it is a condom's BFF.

Here are a few points to remember when selecting and using lube:
- Choose and use water-based lube! Oil-based or silicone-based lube weakens condoms. Condoms and oil based lube are definitely frenemies, actually, they probably hate each other. Also, oil-based lube might irritate your skin if you are sensitive.

-Use a lot! Don't be shy with it. It can go on your body, your partner's body, and your condom/barrier device.

-Pre-lubricated condoms can still be used with lube (but, again, make sure it is WATER-BASED).

According to a sensationally titled ABC News article, there is a new form of emergency contraception available in Europe that can be taken five days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy:

Available by prescription in Europe since September, ellaOne is 50 percent more effective -- and effective for 48 hours longer -- than the "morning-after pill" or Plan B, according to new research published Friday in the Lancet.

In the study of nearly 1,700 women aged 16 to 36 who sought emergency contraception, women who took a morning-after pill had a 2.6 percent chance of becoming pregnant, while women who took ellaOne had only a 1.8 percent chance, and five-day window of opportunity to take the pill.

Researchers noted that all forms of emergency contraception are more effective the sooner after intercourse they are taken, but ellaOne was found to be even more effective -- two thirds more -- than Plan B if taken within 24 hours of intercourse.

While the current form of EC available in the United States can be taken up to 5 days after pregnancy, it is much much much more effective when it is taken in the first 72 hours after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. It's great that there is still research money being used to develop new and more effective forms of EC. The more options the better, right?

Apparently, the answer is "NO" to some conservative advocates who believe (inaccurately) that ellaOne and all other forms of EC cause abortion. EC is a concentrated form of the hormones in the oral birth control many women already take, and it is believed to work by preventing the sperm from reaching the egg and possibly discouraging implantation by changing the conditions in a woman's uterus. Abortion can only be said to happen after a woman is pregnant! And EC is incapable of ending a pregnancy. However, if you try to tell an anti-EC advocate this, it will fall on deaf ears:

"Habits follow technology. Contraception was supposed to prevent an abortion, but it has led to an increase in abortion when people got used to it being around and of course the increased effectiveness of technology [like this] means people will relax that much more on their inhibitions," said Stephen Phelan, communications manager for Human Life International, an anti-abortion missionary organization.

This argument that the availability EC makes someone more lax about their use of contraceptives, or even in their sexual decision making, is ridiculous. I would say the exact opposite is true! Using EC is a responsible way of dealing with contraception failure or unprotected sex. Claiming that EC makes women lazy about contraception is absurd for a lot reasons, and I'll mention two: 1. Because EC is expensive! It runs between $25-50 per pack! and 2. Someone who would take the time to use EC probably is concerned about their health and stability, and she knows that being pregnant and having a baby would change her life in serious ways that she is not ready for!

cross-posted at typicalleigh

I was at a party last night that was on the whole quite enjoyable. When is standing in a cramped hallway and dancing with your favorite people not enjoyable? However, there was one particular party guest I did not enjoy, well, I certainly laughed a lot at the time but if I had not been in party-mode I probably would have tweeked a little. Let me paint you a picture.

A seemingly friendly looking guy, who I'm not sure anyone really knew, spent a lot of time all over the ladies. And in theory, that's fine, if the ladies love him, let him be all over them. If a girl wants to flirt with him, or have him try to pull her back onto a couch when she tries to get up and leave after he creepily kissed her on the forehead, then there's no problem! But when this gross guy is constantly pulling and holding onto girls, and reacting in a visibly pissed off way when they refuse his advances, in a way that says "Fine, f****** b**** doesn't want me whatever," THEN there is a problem. I watched him just slide behind some of my friends, dance all up on without introducing himself, then slide away disappointed if the girl he was dancing on didn't acknowledge him warmly. So yeah, this guy was pretty sleazy.

But you want to know what's ironic about this situation?

He was wearing an armband. You know, those "awareness" bands that were so trendy years ago and are now ubiquitous? He was wearing one that said "No Victims - No Violence."

You know who produced those armbands? College of Charleston's victim assistance and prevention program. You know what sort of victims this program serves? VICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

So, this guy must care about rape, right? Or sexual assault, right? Like, if some girl was attacked by a stranger in the bushes, I'm sure he would care a lot, I'm sure he would be righteously angry. But in a party situation, where everyone is supposed to be "cool" and "open," this guy clearly has no clue what consent is. I could read his thoughts on his face, he was thinking "don't get all worked up, I was just trying to be friendly, geez, can a guy not flirt with (read: put his hands all over) girls he doesn't know anymore?"

I doubled over laughing when a friend and I noticed this guy was wearing that armband. It was hilarious. It was absurd. It was really really really sad. And honestly, he's lucky he didn't try to talk to me or my friends again after we noticed, because I don't think I could have resisted asking him about it. I would have said something like "Oh wow, that's great you care about sexual violence, maybe you should start asking for consent in your OWN life." But, right now, I can only take comfort in the fact that all of my friends present, both boys and girls, found the same thing funny, and I'm lucky to be surrounded by people who see the irony in the situation.

crossposted at typical leigh