Via Science Daily:

That old adage favored by scientists and ‘60s girl groups — “correlation is not causation, no sir” — seems to have eluded more than a few pundits in our day.

One hasty assumption in particular–that sexy media influences kids to have sex earlier–is being challenged in an article in a recent issue of Developmental Psychology. Psychologists Laurence Steinberg and Kathryn Monahan revisit a much-cited 2006 study by media expert Jane D. Brown which concluded that exposure to sexualized content on TV, or in music, movies, and magazines, accelerates sexual activity in young teenagers.

Steinberg and Monahan reanalyzed the data of Brown’s longitudinal study, but this time took into account the other dimensions of the participants’ lives that may have influenced their exposure to sexualized media and their pre-existing inclination to view or listen to the sexy stuff.

The authors discovered that while a link exists between sexual content and earlier sexual activity, they found “no accelerating or hastening effect of exposure to sexy media content on sexual debut once steps were taken to ensure that adolescents with and without high media exposure were matched on their propensity to be exposed to media with sexual content.”

They conclude, in other words, that the kids who were inclined to have sex earlier were also the kids who’d be likely to consume the hotter media, but the media didn’t, like, make them do it. In OTHERother words, it wasn’t Ke$ha’s fault (this time).

Kudos to Steinberg and Monahan for questioning a long-held assumption, turning the old blame-the-media trope on its head, and for using the word “sexy” about 700 times in their article, making it read like a Prince song.

Most importantly, they turn the focus back to other scientifically established causes of precocious sexual activity: parent–child conflicts and peer influence. Knowing the real causes may lead to more effective ways of helping kids be smart and wise consumers, or not, of the sexed-up stuff they see.

As seen on TV, March 23, 1998…

Dear Breakup Girl,

My husband and I have been married for about a year and a half (together for a total of seven years). Other than a few flings/torrid one night affairs, I was never serious with anyone else. Alright, I’ll cut to the chase. Things are not as I thought they would be. It is not like I grew up with parents that had a fairy tale marriage, the Cleavers we were not. I can’t help but be concerned for my own marriage, things just don’t “seem” right. In my opinion people recently married and in their 20’s should be “hitting the sheets.” I know there isn’t another woman… Yeah yeah I know what they say but I KNOW. Needless to say the bed is far from hot and my thoughts are beginning to wander. My concern is what to do — pretty soon my thoughts won’t be all that are wandering… Any pearls of wisdom?

— Restless Lola

Dear Lola,

As far as hot sex is concerned, I don’t see how any couple can keep up with those crazy Cleavers. That was TV, not reality. Let go of the impossible standards.

Okay, now that I’ve gotten the wisecrack out of my system, let me suggest something the Cleavers didn’t have: counseling. Don’t worry about “should be”s; worry about — and trust — how you feel. If something’s wrong, do try to fix it. But if something’s missing in your bed, don’t look for it in someone else’s. That’s something Eddie Haskell would do, not you.

Love,
Breakup Girl

Do women reach their sexual peak in their thirties? That’s what folks say, often employing a saucy reference to (SPEAKING OF OLD) Sex and the City.

But an upbeat post at Your Tango begs to differ. Outing the original source of that old young wives tale (Kinsey, we’re looking at you!), it explains that actually each stage/decade of a woman’s sexual life offers a different set of advantages.

Although columnist/sex expert Dr. Trina Read oversimplifies the post-menopausal stage a bit, recent studies in both endocrinology and psychology (especially the work of Dr. Rossella Nappi) suggest that post-menopausal women do have problems with lowered desire and higher dysfunction, but can take measures to overcome these problems and enjoy good sex for the rest of their lives.

A survey of 5,000 librarians found that one in five had had sex in the stacks. Also:

51% said they would pose nude for money.
61% have rented an x-rated movie.
91% have read “The Joy of Sex.”
63% have had sex in a car.

This survey was actually done by Wilson Library Bulletin in 1992, but only released now..

Will Manley circulated the steamy survey, but his bosses refused to print the results and fired him. He posted the results on his blog, 18 years later.

This begs the question, how sexy are librarians in 2010? Bibliophiles share your stories below!

Source: New York Daily News. Read the full story at willmanley.com

Is it or isn’t it? In an article set to appear in the June 2010 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, researchers found that oral sex is … not.

Only about 20% of university students participating in a 2007 survey agreed that oral-genital contact constituted sex, yet the majority believed that penile-vaginal and penile-anal intercourse did (98% and 78%, respectively)…

While I agree that demoting oral sex to, say, just “fooling around”  doesn’t quite work either, I am most disturbed by:

a) The 2 % of university students who don’t believe penile-vaginal intercourse constitutes sex, and

b) The 22% of university students who don’t believe penile-anal intercourse also constitutes sex.

Um, then…what does? Sex obviously feels good — and is, arguably, essential — to many humans of all orientations, but if we want to get biological and scientific, it is essentially about reproduction, propagating the species and all that. Therefore, one would think, college kids, who have had at least high school biology — and social lives — would be 100% certain that penile-vaginal intercourse is mostly the way that happens. The fact that even 2% of them don’t know that makes me hope there is some margin of error with the study’s statistics or there are some smart gay students who are subversively protesting the common perception of vaginal penile sex as normal. Most likely, we seriously need to revamp sex education.

Apparently, the authors of the study also suggest that sex education may be to blame for this oral “sex” business as abstinence-only education as well as more comprehensive sex education programs focus on penile-vaginal intercourse. There is indeed danger — sexually transmitted and otherwise — in disassociating oral sex from “SEXsex.” Oral sex can spread disease more easily than, say, a back rub or a hi-five. So, why don’t we, as a society, recognize that education and making facts available to our young people is the best preventative medicine for both teen pregnancy and STDs? Oh wait: because — as at least the grownups known — addressing even the matter of oral sex is, yes, talking about SEX.

According to the CDC, the teen birth rate has dropped. Whether this is unequivocally good news is unclear, given, for example, the convincing evidence that a preponderance of teens are saving themselves for a vampire. Here’s what Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, had to say:

“The drop in the teen birthrate after a two-year increase is welcome news, but the fact remains that nearly 750,000 teens become pregnant every year, a number that is still unacceptably high. When it comes to preventing unintended pregnancies and keeping our teens healthy and safe, hiding our heads in the sand is not a sound strategy. Our young people need education and support that comes from comprehensive, medically accurate, age-appropriate sex ed.

“That’s why we must continue to invest in commonsense policies that achieve our shared goal of truly preventing unintended pregnancies and lowering the teen pregnancy and birthrate. Full funding for comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education programs will put our nation on a sustained path of decreased teen birthrates.

“President Obama and members of Congress have taken a major step forward in allocating more than $185 million in evidence-based, medically accurate teen pregnancy prevention programs. [Yeah, but…?!] Studies show that these types of comprehensive sex education programs are effective in reducing teen pregnancy.

“As we mark STD Awareness Month and the launch of our Get Yourself Tested, or GYT, campaign with MTV, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Kaiser Family Foundation (www.gytnow.org), it is imperative that we take the issue of teen health seriously. An investment in comprehensive sex education is an investment in reducing STDs and unintended and teen pregnancies. It’s that simple.”

Way back in sheesh, 1999, long before we could embed video, we (specifically, Mikki Halpin) reviewed FOBG Sarah Jacobson’s Mary Jane’s Not A Virgin Any More, “an amazing coming-of-age story…about the slow, sputtering start of sexuality and self-awareness.” (More: “You thought the sex-in-a-car scene in Titanic was hot? Wait until you see this one! Not to mention the masturbation scenes, the sex-in-a-graveyard scene, the how-I-lost-my-virginity-scenes, the coming-out scene, and the “What is a clitoris?” speech. Plus comedic relief from Jello Biafra!”) Tragically, the brilliant Sarah died in 2004 at the age of 32.

Now — tomorrow, in fact — in Sarah’s much-celebrated memory, Mikki and friends present:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FABULOUS SARAH JACOBSON
An evening to honor DIY filmmaker Sarah Jacobson
And a benefit for the Sarah Jacobson Film Grant
February 15, 2010
7 pm doors, 8 pm show
Glasslands Gallery, Brooklyn, NY

On Monday, February 15, 2010, filmmakers, punk rockers, feminists, and musicians will gather to remember filmmaker Sarah Jacobson (1970–2004). The evening will include an appearance from Sarah’s mother Ruth Jacobson, and her sister Lee Jacobson. There is a $5 suggested donation at the door, and all proceeds will go to the Sarah Jacobson Film Grant, which supports independent young women filmmakers.

Sarah Jacobson (1971–2004) was a a filmmaker who wrote, produced, and directed several movies in the 1990s, including “Mary Jane’s Not A Virgin Any More” and “I Was a Teenage Serial Killer.” Sarah’s films reflected her punk sensibilities, her feminist beliefs, and her dedication to DIY principles. She and her mother Ruth Jacbson brought “Mary Jane” to the 1997 Sundance festival, and it was named by Film Threat as one of the “25 Underground Films You Must See.” Sarah was active in the music scene and directed several music videos, including one for Man… or Astroman? She died in 2004 at the age of 32.

After her death, filmmaker Sam Green and Sarah’s mother established the Sarah Jacobson Film Grant for young women “whose work embodies some of the things that Sarah stood for: a fierce DIY approach to filmmaking, a radical social critique, and a thoroughly underground sensibility.” Since 2004, the grant has been awarded to eight filmmakers: Marie Losier, Natasha Mendonca, Kara Herold, Gretchen Hogue, Joanna Dery, Vanessa Renwick, Ellen Lake, and Veronica Majano.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, the Fabulous Sarah Jacobson” will celebrate Sarah’s life and work. It also launches the grant cycle for 2010 and information about applying for the grant will be available at the event and on the Sarah Jacobson Film Grant website.

The evening will begin with a short screening of samples of previous grant winners and two of Sarah’s short films. Filmmaker Barbara Hammer and Sarah’s mother Ruth will then speak and introduce “Mary Jane’s Not a Virgin Any More.” The evening will also include video tributes from Sarah’s fans and friends including Kathleen Hanna, Allison Anders, Tamra Davis, Sam Green, George Kuchar, Michelle Handelman, and Craig Baldwin.

Glasslands is located at 289 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11211
[L] to Bedford, [J] to Marcy

Tough choices on February 8, 1999…

Dear Breakup Girl,

My boyfriend and I were together for 8 1/2 months, quite a feat for two seniors in high school. We broke up not too long ago, but the relationship has really been over for longer than that. At the beginning, everything was wonderful. He was different from the typical guy that I was attracted to, but that was part of the attraction. Eventually, we decided to have sex– something that I had always wanted to wait until marriage for. But after many, many make out sessions and many, many conversations on how to protect ourselves, and many, many “I love you”s, I changed my mind. Sex wasn’t something that I actually enjoyed a whole lot, because basically, I just felt really mad at myself for giving into something when I had felt so strongly about remaining a virgin until marriage.

Anyway, after our decision to bring sex into the relationship, I became extremely emotional (my guess is that it was because of the strong attatchment to him combined with my troubled thoughts and possibly some side effects to the Pill). I didn’t want to be with him any longer because all it did was remind me of how I had let myself down.

So, after two months of “trying to make things work” and a lot of tears, we broke up. I thought that it would feel horrible and it did, but only for a few days. I realized that I was better off now (no more guilt) and that we would always stay friends… which basically is what we had become by the end of the relationship.

All right, oh wise Breakup Girl, here is my question. “Jeff” called me a few days ago and asked me if I wanted to spend Valentine’s Day with him. He says that V-Day is a day to spend time with someone special and that I am that someone–his best friend. So I am wrestling with my heart and mind, which are extremely conflicting at the moment. What do I do? I would love to spend the day with him (the plan would be to go out to lunch or dinner and maybe a movie), but I am afraid that we would do something stupid and get back together — something that I don’t want right now. He is my best friend, on the other hand, and it would be good to see him and just hang out. Breakup Girl, please help!

— Horribly Confused

(more…)

What we learned from watching the Super Bowl: women are frigid, scoldy bitches, unless you drink beer. What we learn from most media analysis of studies of women’s (waning?) libido is often — if less uncreative and nasty — equally reductive.

How refreshing, then, to read, in yesterday’s Washington Post, about Daphne Miller, M.D.’s thoughtful consideration — and successful treatment — of her 47-year-old patient’s complaint of waning desire. Her point, however, is not her success; it’s that when it comes to finding a “cure” for stalled libido (exercise? counseling? drugs?) one woman’s mrrrrrrow! is another’s meh. Dr. Miller writes: “A woman’s sexual experience depends on a complex interplay of her neuroendocrine system, her multiple sex organs and any number of social circumstances, and it stands to reason that there might be many places where the process can go awry.” In other words: women are complex! Also, a unicorn! Brava.

Bonus quote from Rosemary Basson, director of the Sexual Medicine Program in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “Look,” she explained to Miller, “if there was a drug that was so potent that it could overcome all misgivings we have about ourselves, our sexual image, our uncertainty about our sexual partners, the kids banging at our bedroom door, you could not make it legal. It would be slipped into drinks. What are people looking for?”

The New York Times reports that a study of middle-school students has “found for the first time that abstinence-only education helped to delay their sexual initiation.” Uh oh? The finding “is already beginning to shake up the longstanding debate over how best to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.”

Okay okay! Nobody panic! Keep reading.

“[T]he abstinence-only classes in the Jemmott study…unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage. The classes also did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information. [This] abstinence-only course was designed for the research, and is not in current use in schools.” [Emphasis added.]

Well, there you go. Look, the debate has never been about abstinence-only vs. “…and, for your homework, please have sex this afternoon.” It’s moralistic, inaccurate abstinence-only vs. comprehensive and realistic: please wait; if you don’t, please be responsible. Though there are those who will misrepresent this research as surely as they misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms, it’s actually yet another vote in our favor.

Update: This (PDF) just in from our heroes at Guttmacher: “While the evaluated program is the first abstinence-only intervention to demonstrate this positive impact in a randomized control trial, it was not a rigid ‘abstinence-only-until-marriage’ program of the type that, until this year, received significant federal funding. The evaluation, therefore, adds important new information to the question of “what works” in sex education, but it essentially leaves intact the significant body of evidence showing that abstinence-only- until-marriage programming that met previous federal guidelines is ineffective.”