As someone who was all but completely celibate throughout high school and this was not at all by conscious choice, I can tell you that I often found it frustrating to deal with the fact that a lot of teenagers were under- or mis-informed about safer sex, that a lot of teenagers were sexually active, and that a lot of politicians and think tanks believed in stanching teenage sexual activity entirely. I was fourteen when I started listening to Loveline (though I didn't always agree with Dr. Drew) and it began my path of sex-pertise (as it were). I was eager to get informed. I discovered Scarleteen in my junior year of high school and happily perused the site, but at the same time, I'd wonder:

Why am I getting informed about something that's relevant to everyone else but not to me?

After all, a little less than half of 15-19 year olds have had sex at least once. But if you're not among those getting laid...nothing you read here can be relevant to you, right? Wrong.

In my case, my state of celibacy came with a bunch of unhealthy thoughts - what's the matter with me? Am I in a special class of social pariahs? I must be the only one who's more than willing to have sex but still not having it. I mean, throw in the fact that I'm a girl and that gender stereotypes abound, and that it's boys who have the monopoly on sexual desire and my gender was supposed to be the jealously guarded keeper of the keys. Here I was breaking that stereotype, and was it not any boy's dream come true? So why weren't they lining up to get with me? I was especially unattractive. QED.

You might already see something wrong with that line of thought. If not, I'll spell it out.
You're not unattractive. You're not the only one who'd love to be hooking up with someone but you're not. And it's not - I repeat, not - the case that heterosexual girls should automatically have a bevy of potential hookups and if they don't, that something's wrong with them.

This bears repeating. Being sexually active isn't necessarily a mark of being sexually desirable, and nor is being up for hooking up, but potential lovers don't seem or aren't interested, a mark of being sexually undesirable. Besides, chances are, you won't be celibate for the rest of your life. And whether you engage in partnered sex at age 16 or 25 or 60 or heck, never, you'll need to know how to be safe about it.

Not being sexually active does not exclude you from comprehensive sex education. (Know too, that there's more to sexuality than just what you do with others. There's masturbation, values, body image, relationships both romantic and non-romantic.)

This is why I'm not a fan of the line, "Don't have sex but if you must, then know how to use a condom." I realize that it's a logical fallacy but it still feels like there's an implication that if you're not sexually active, then all information is moot, as if the phrase excludes teens who aren't sexually active. I'd like to see that phrase changed to, "Whether you do or don't have sex and whether you start now or later or never, you should not be ignorant about safer sex. This information is crucial no matter what."

I actually believed in abstinence until marriage for a while. But even then - especially then, because my beliefs were intrinsic, and appeals to consequences made it seem like waiting wasn't good simply for its own sake - it rubbed me the wrong way when teachers said, "Don't have sex because that can lead to pregnancy." I mean, let's do a thought experiment where some form of birth control (not abstinence) exists that's 100% effective against both pregnancy and any and all STIs to boot. All bets are off then? All reasons to wait for sex are completely obviated? No? So there are more compelling reasons to wait to have sex than pregnancy or STIs? Then why the fear that learning about safer sex will lead to action? Knowing does not mean doing. Besides, I find that fear is a poor basis for sexual choices all around.

And this brings us full circle. Do not buy into stereotypes. You are not some sort of freak if you haven't slept with someone yet, and you cannot assume that you'll be abstinent forever. Most importantly of all, honest, accurate, unvarnished sexual education does not exclude you.
Abstinence does not mean ignorance.

That's the response to the question "What if I want to have sex before I get married?" in "No Second Chance," a film that is part of Sex Respect, an abstinence-only program. Sex Respect has a host of other special and oh-so-factual messages for you in their student workbook, including such sparkly gems as:

"A young man's natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone...females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well." (p. 11) Did you know that without cultural conditioning, women don't have any desire for sex? Of course you did. Did you know that women don't have any testosterone in our bodies, too? Note: neither of these things are true. But you knew that already.

"A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?" (p. 94) So, when it comes to sex, men don't have emotions and women don't have any of our five senses. Fascinating. And no: that's totally not fair, but then gender stereotypes rarely are.

"These are simply natural consequences. For example, if you eat spoiled food, you will get sick. If you jump from a tall building, you will be hurt or killed. If you spend more money than you make, your enslavement to debt affects you and those whom you love. If you have sex outside of marriage, there are consequences for you, your partner and society." (p. 11) Including the not-to-be-missed consequence of having to pay over a billion in U.S. tax dollars to fund stellar education just like this.

But this particular message in the video, that sex (and only sex outside of heterosexual marriage) equals death is a common thread in many, if not most, abstinence-only curricula and programs. I figured it was high time we just unpack it, take a good look at the real deal, and be done with it.

I'm pretty familiar with common causes of death, but I thought I'd channel my inner goth and do some homework on death anyway. I even -- though most of me knew better -- prepared myself to discover that sex INDEED posed far larger risks of death than I thought, and prepared myself to share that information if I discovered it. After all, if I had any agenda or educational model that required my not being truthful about any part of sexuality or sexual health, then as far as I'm concerned, the impetus would be on me not to lie or misrepresent that information but to adjust that agenda or the way I educated. Clearly, this is a way of thinking lost on some folks.

I'm keeping this to the U.S. for a few reasons. One biggie is that if I were to pull international statistics, I'd be including nations where ultimately, very serious lack of access to healthcare or basic, healthy living conditions was often the real cause of death: where what someone died from often would have been preventable with care and a better environment. That's hardly a non-issue here in the States, but it's not the kind of issue it is here as it is in much of Africa or some areas in Asia. I'm also being kind to the ab-onlies in sticking to the U.S. If I included, for instance, HIV-related deaths from the least developed nations, I'd be showing up even more clear evidence than we have in the States that marriage doesn't prevent sexually transmitted infections. "In Rwanda and Zambia, for example, an estimated 55-93% of new infections occur within marriage or in cohabiting relationships." Same goes for deaths for pregnant women. We have to include those if we're addressing death related to sex, but while maternal death rates for the U.S. are high for a developed nation, they're peanuts in comparison to those of third world nations. Conversely, the rate of abortion-related deaths is also far, far higher in areas where abortion is illegal.

Let's go ahead and look at some current death statistics. According to the CDC, in 2006 there were 2,426,264 deaths in the United States. The top 15 leading causes of death, and how many deaths for each of those causes there were, is as follows:

• Heart disease: 631,636
• Cancer: 559,888
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599 (38,648 of those are from car accidents)
• Diabetes: 72,449
• Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
• Septicemia: 34,234
• Intentional self-harm (suicide) 33,300
• Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 27,555
• Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 23,855
• Parkinson’s disease 19,566
• Assault (homicide) 18,573

It's perhaps worth noting that in 2006, there were "30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths)." In that same vein, here is a list of U.S. military deaths in Iraq for 2006: there were 920 U.S. Military deaths (during active duty) for 2006, total. If it seems silly to mention such a relatively small number, keep reading.

You'll notice that STIs and pregnancy (including labor/delivery or abortion) aren't on that list at all: they don't even make the top 15, which might be pretty surprising when someone is making it sound like if you have sex (oh, sorry: premarital sex) you're not only going to drop dead, you're going to drag everyone else you know to the grave with you.

Of course, some of the deaths in some of those groups may have been related to sex. For instance, three leading causes of death for pregnant women are heart disease, homicide (often directly related to being pregnant) and vehicular accidents. Septicemia can also occur due to miscarriage. Similarly, those who died from HIV/AIDS may have actually died of pneumonia of influenza. And sometimes people (though not usually people your age) really do have strokes during sex.

To pick up some of those gaps, "The rate of maternal mortality in the United States declined dramatically over the last century; however, an increase in the rate has become evident in the past several decades. In 2006, the maternal mortality rate was 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to a low of 6.6 in 1987. In 2006, there were a total of 569 maternal deaths (those resulting from complications during pregnancy, childbirth, or direct or indirect obstetric causes up to 42 days after delivery or termination of pregnancy)." That rate includes deaths due to abortions, but is mostly deaths due to sustaining a pregnancy or to labor or delivery. The rate of death for abortion overall is far lower than for that of sustained pregnancy: it's "one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks." And only 1.4% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks, the majority of which are performed due to serious complications of pregnancy which can include serious health risks for those pregnant women.

In 2006, the estimated number of deaths of persons due to HIV/AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 12,113. In other words, while most deaths due to HIV/AIDS are included in the death statistics for other direct causes, this is exactly how many HIV/AIDS-related deaths we had in 2006. Sparing any deaths from cervical cancer related to HPV, and Hepatitis-related deaths (which often is acquired nonsexually), most other STIs do not result in death at all, let alone make the grade for leading causes of death.

This article (Sexually Transmitted Infections 2005;81:38-40) lists deaths directly related to sex, though for 1998, not 2006. That's important because some of these rates are different than they are now: for instance, our maternal death rate has increased and our HIV-related death rate has decreased by nearly half). Would that we had the same study for 2006, but this is the only thing like this I can find anywhere:

As part of an analysis of the burden of disease and injury in the United States, we identified and quantified the incidence of adverse health events, deaths, and disability adjusted life years (DALY) attributed to sexual behaviour. In 1998... 29,782 such deaths (1.3% of all US deaths) occurred... Viral infections and their sequelae accounted for nearly all sexual behaviour related deaths—mostly HIV/AIDS.

The table of data for that piece shows the vast majority of those deaths were HIV-related (22,455), and again, that's almost twice the rate of HIV-related deaths as we see in the states currently, primarily due to advances in HIV medical care and treatment. The next highest group was cervical cancer likely due to HPV (4,921) -- which would be included in the total rate for all cancers -- and the next rung was from Hepatitis B and C, which may or may not even have been acquired sexually. The same is likely true for some (but not the majority) of those HIV/AIDS deaths; a minority of those cases may have been due to IV-drug use, for instance. This data apparently also only included deaths related to unwanted, not wanted, pregnancy. That leaves only 414 deaths from other STIs or from unwanted pregnancy death outcomes.

Now that we've got all that sorted: by all means, having sex can result in some health issues or conditions (and some of them certainly are or can become serious) and can be related directly to a death. Comprehensive sex educators and organizations like Scarleteen want you to know that, it's something we mention (and always have) when it's relevant, and we want you to know how -- which is why we do that funny thing where we tell you how -- you can protect yourself as best you can from death and other unwanted health outcomes from sex, either by abstaining from partnered sex or by utilizing safer sex practices if and when you choose to engage in partnered sex (whether you're married or not). In other words, someone saying sex could result in death isn't lying. It can.

But. You are much less likely to die from sex than you are from a whole host of other behaviours or circumstances, some of which the same folks would not warn you about with anything close to the same urgency or intensity. I just don't see driver's ed teachers telling you that if you get in a car at all, you need to be "prepared to die," even though more people die in car accidents than those who die as a result of having any kind of sex. (I also don't imagine they say that wearing a seatbelt when you are in a car is playing "Russian roulette.") I don't see them telling that to a class about enlisting in the military. I don't see them saying that to nearly everyone eating things in the lunchroom every day which could put them at risk for the most common cause of death. "Time for lunch, everyone! Prepare to die!"

Anyone who is stating or making it sound like sex or premarital sex is something more likely to kill you than anything else is being baldly dishonest. Whether you have sex with a partner in or out of marriage, with a partner of any given gender, at any given age and even IF (though we don't advise it) you take risks with your health and don't have sex safely, it is not, by any stretch, highly likely to kill you, and you do NOT have to "be prepared to die" if you choose to be sexually active. Not any more than you need to be prepared to die because we're all going to freaking die at some point no matter what we do, anyway.

And unless the same people telling you that if you have sex YOU WILL DIE are also telling you, with the same hysteria, force and fury that YOU WILL DIE if:

• you eat a lot of meat, dairy or greasy, processed foods
• you get in a car
• you own a gun (or keep company around those who do)
• you get the flu
• you smoke
• you drink
• you're a black male (after all, black men have the lowest life expectancy)
• you do recreational drugs OR take perfectly legal, prescribed medications (any kind of drug use can be a common cause for some of the leading causes of death)
• you interact with other people in any way, especially any way that might make them unhappy (because they might kill you)
• you do anything at all that may be linked to cancer (beyond the obvious, that can even be things like like dying your hair, using artificial sweeteners or deodorant, eating foods treated with pesticides, getting stressed out -- maybe from people yelling at you that you're going to die, for example...)
• you don't manage your sugar intake
• you don't see a dentist or brush your teeth often enough (tooth infections are a common cause of septicemia)
• you get pregnant (at any age, married or not)
• you have certain genetics that may incline you to certain disease or conditions
• you don't lead a basically healthy lifestyle, like eating well, getting enough exercise, getting enough rest, avoiding or limiting things like smoking or drinking and yes, very risky ways of having sex
• you leave the house, ever, especially when not wearing a hermetically-sealed bubble
• or you get old

...then those folks are being particularly dishonest, especially if they're telling you that they're trying to scare the crap out of you expressly out of concern for your health, rather than because they want you to conform to their own personal set of values. Because doing any or all of the things in that list are directly related to or causes of the ACTUAL leading causes of death: the real ways you are most likely to die.

Since you're here at Scarleteen, I know I don't have to tell you that if you're going to have sex with other people, we think it's a wise idea to have sex safely and responsibly (in ways which have been soundly and scientifically proven, over time, to protect your life and health, something public health agencies all agree on). I know I don't have to tell you that if you and/or any partner aren't ready to do that, we think it's a good idea to put sex on hold until you are all ready, willing and able to have sex safely and responsibly. Not just until you're married, if marriage is even an option for you or something you want to do at all. One of the reasons we think that is because some kinds of sex (most primarily vaginal or anal intercourse) sometimes can pose a risk of death, and another, the more pressing, is because far more often, some kinds of sex can pose risks to your health and the quality of your life.

But we also think that just like you choose to go ahead and drive in that car even though it's one of the most common causes of death; just like you choose to leave your home at any time even though it may expose you to things like flu viruses or people who might shoot you, that you're capable of -- and absolutely entitled to -- making choices about what possible risks in your life you want to take for the possible benefits those same actions or behaviors might offer. Because that's simply a part of living your life, the life that, by virtue of merely being alive, is going to kill you some day whether you have sex or not.

P.S. Happy Halloween!

I am halfway through my exchange semester in the US, and enjoying all of the opportunities that an American college campus affords me. This past week, my campus put on an event called “Sexploration Week”. Run by the university's health center, this meant info-stands with free condoms, rapid-result , anonymous HIV testing, and several presentations by guest speakers. As both a curious college student and someone who is interested in the field of sex education, I was very excited about the event. And so, in the middle of midterm-week-insanity, I managed to attend a presentation by the company Pure Romance, and a live Q&A session with sex advice columnist Dan Savage.

Because of what I do at Scarleteen, I am always interested in seeing what kind of information teens and young adults are exposed to and how it is delivered. So while I was curious to learn some new things myself, I also felt a little like an under-cover agent, assessing the information that was given and how it was presented.

My first stop on Tuesday was presentation by Pure Romance Inc, a company that sells 'intimacy enhancing products' to women via Pure Romance parties. It was advertised on the schedule as “The Naked Truth” and I went into it not knowing what to expect. To be honest, I was a little surprised at what it turned out to be. My first introduction to the topic was by way of a product catalogue that I received upon entering the lecture hall. On the cover, five women in pink outfits were holding up a box with a pink bow and a little heart on it (the company logo), ecstatic looks on their faces. Though the women depicted are racially diverse, they are all conventionally pretty, and those whose hands we can see are sporting wedding bands. This cover gave me the sense that the products are intended for married women in their 30s, rather than college students with a wide variety of sexual orientations.

The rest of the catalogue only serves to reinforce that impression. First of all, though some of the products are advertised as uni-sex, everything is overwhelmingly pink (because, you know, it's every woman's favourite color!). Secondly, many of the product descriptions are heterosexist and based on gender stereotypes. For example on page ten, in the section entitled 'Foreplay', a pink info box tells us that “women are like Crock-Pots and men are like microwaves: It takes us a little longer to get warmed up!”. A few pages later, 'arousal creams' are advertised with the headline “Because he's ready, you're not. Now you are!” - this not only assumes that it's the woman who isn't in the mood, it also advocates using products to jump-start, rather than skipping sex for the night or talking about why you're not in the mood. It only gets worse on the next page, entitled 'Performance Enhancers'. Here we find a cream called 'Great Head' that relaxes the gag-reflex for when “oral favors feel like all labor, no love”, a numbing cream (not that they come right out and call it that, or anything) for “those who experience premature ejaculation” and my personal favourite, 'Like a Virgin', a tightening cream that will make it “feel[s] like the first time”.

Now, to the credit of the presenter, the presentation itself wasn't nearly as bad as the catalogue. The information she gave was factually correct, and in many instances she supplemented the catalogue's description to make it more inclusive. For example, in her description of 'arousal creams', she emphasized that hormonal birth control can often lower libido, as can stress and certain other medications. She also advertised lubricant-use and explained which types are condom-safe, and also dispelled the myth that if you 'need' extra lubricant, it means that there is something wrong with you. She also tried to be inclusive of same-sex partners.

On the whole, I feel like an honest effort was made to be inclusive and arm the students with honest information. Also, the entire Sexploration week with all of its different presentations was funded in part by the company, so they helped to get a lot of opportunities for education to the students in ways that might otherwise not have been possible. But the catalogue did leave a bitter taste in my mouth, and I hope that the other students who attended the presentation did not look at it too closely.

On Thursday, I found myself in IU's Alumni Hall for the Question and Answer session with syndicated sex-columnist Dan Savage. He stepped on the stage and was greeted with a standing ovation even before he had had the chance to say anything at all. He started the evening by telling us that he often gets slammed by the media for coming to campuses “with an agenda”. So to circumvent that criticism, he came with nothing at all prepared and will only answer our questions. That way, no one can accuse him of having an agenda. His next order of business was to take a poll of the sexual orientations represented in the audience. A fairly large number of people identified as homosexual or bisexual, and though many of the questions were from heterosexuals, as well, Dan often addressed the queer community specifically, and it was an incredibly empowering experience to sit in a room full of fellow non-straight people and listen to a non-straight person talk about sex.

After those preliminaries, he went right to the first question. Now, I have to admit that I went to this event with mixed feelings. While I think that, over all, Dan Savage gives awesome advice and that it's great to have someone like him be in the position that he is in, I do sometimes cringe at some of the advice that he gives. And so, because I did end up leaving the room feeling giddy and empowered, I want to get the negative bit out of the way first and end this blog on a positive note. To the question “Is it weird to still be a virgin in your 20s?” Dan answered with yes. He then qualified his response by stating that most people become sexually active at 15 or 16, but from there proceeded to talk about how waiting longer to have sex may make someone more prone to sexual dysfunction.

His advice was “Get out there, get drunk, and get it." He added “You don't want to get really shitfaced and accidentally rape someone, or get really shitfaced and be accidentally raped, but anyone who says that there can be no consent when alcohol is involved is lying."

Aside from the assumption that there is a common definition of virginity that we were all operating with (which struck me as particularly odd coming from someone who is gay) and the somewhat iffy thesis that waiting to have sex, for whatever reason, leads to sexual dysfunction (I'd love it if he could show me some research on that), I was uncomfortable with his advice for several reasons. For one thing, it's rarely a good idea to have sex before you are ready, and going out with the intention to get drunk and get laid just to get it over with is just not something that's likely to be very healthy or pleasurable. Furthermore, and ignoring his glib and somewhat hurtful comments about rape, many states have laws, and many colleges have policies, stating that someone who is intoxicated cannot give consent.

So on the whole, Dan, your advice there was pretty crap.

As the evening progressed, he went on to give more thoughtful responses. Asked about the recent addition of sexual orientation to the hate crime legislation, he stated that “this does not create a protective force field. You can still punch me in the face." But while hate crime legislation does not prevent hate crime, it is a positive step to see sexual orientation included in the law. He also commented on the hysteria about sexting, pointing out how ridiculous it is that a 15 year old girl could get in trouble for sending pictures of her own breasts to her 15 year old boyfriend. He jokingly suggested that we should all take nude pictures of ourselves and post them on the internet, so that it stops being such a big deal.

Dan also spent a lot of time talking about forced or assumed monogamy. “This is a dangerous thing to say for a gay male and father of a child," he told us, “but I am in an open relationship." Having a conversation about whether or not one wants to be monogamous, and figuring out the right arrangement for you and your partner specifically, be that open or closed, can drastically reduce the occurrence of cheating.

Another topic he spent a lot of time on was that of communication. “Gay people are better at sex”, he postulated. Not just because they have more of it, but because he feels gay people have a very different approach to sex and to communicating about sex. For heterosexuals, a lot of things are mutually assumed about sex, so it is not talked about. For gay people, there can be no assumptions and everything needs to be discussed beforehand. “With straight people, if they they both want to have sex, there's where the conversations ends. With gay people, that's just the beginning."

Dan ended his talk with a story about a horse. 16 years ago, he had written a column about whether bestiality was right or wrong, and come to the conclusion that it was wrong, as an animal cannot give consent. He received an angry letter from a man in Kentucky, who was married to a horse. Since Dan was also doing a radio show at the time, and this seemed like an interesting conversation, he invited the man to call into the radio show and talk about his marriage. He explained that he knew his horse was consenting since, if you're standing behind a horse and doing something doesn't like, you're going to get kicked in the face. They talked amicably for an hour, and at the very end, it occurred to Dan that he had never asked if it was a girl horse or a boy horse. So while the producer was already waving frantically to indicate the end of the show, Dan called out his last question. He was greeted with silence, and, he said, “you could literally hear him drawing himself up and after a pause he finally spat out 'I am NOT homosexual!' as if the worst thing you could imply about this man's marriage to a horse was that it was with a boy horse.”

Yesterday's article in the Indiana Daily Student claimed that many had left the auditorium appalled. I had noticed some commotion at some points during the talk, of people getting up and leaving, but I did not hear any particularly negative comments as I was leaving at the end. To be perfectly honest, I can see where people might not be too happy with Dan Savage. Even someone queer-friendly and sex-positive might easily get offended at his frequent use of graphic language or, like me, feel uncomfortable at his glib dismissals of rape. But on the whole, I feel that the good that he does outweighs any thoughtless comments he made. As he pointed out, “America is so puritanical that we are seen as freaky-deaky and kinky. But you know? It's not all bad. It's fun being freaky-deaky!” And that is why I enjoyed listening to Dan Savage. Not because of his advice, but because of the simple and all-too-rare pleasure of being able to hang out with a bunch of queer people and talk about sex.

Good news from the White House! President Obama announced today that the US will overturn its current law banning HIV-positive individuals from entering the United States as tourists or immigrants. He explained that lifting the ban will help end stigma against people with HIV/AIDS; in fact, the ban itself has kept many people from getting tested and, therefore, could even be said to increase the spread of the disease.

Put into place by the Department of Health and Human Services, the initial ban went into effect back in 1987, "at a time of widespread fear and ignorance about the disease." However, while education and awareness have increased over the years, it has taken 22 years to change it. That's a long time for the families kept many families apart and "thousands of students, tourists and refugees", not to mention children up for adoption, who have been kept out for their HIV status alone. As an American with many international friends and who is committed to the idea of the US being a welcoming, diverse place to visit or to live for everyone, I have been very disturbed by the increasing amount of hurdles for those wishing to visit, study or emigrate to the United States. I find this to be great news for everyone, not just those living with HIV/AIDS and their loved ones, and hope the change occurs swiftly and smoothly.

Other countries that currently have such bans include Armenia, Brunei, Iraq, Libya, Moldova, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Sudan.

SOURCE: This blog entry was based on the article HIV Travel Ban Lifted by President Obama available at the Huffington Post.

For more information on HIV and AIDS from Scarleteen, we recommend the following articles:
Positively Informed: An HIV/AIDS Roundup
The STI Files: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
World AIDS Day (2001)

Scarleteen volunteer and blogger, Lena, was previously known as Femke here at the blog.

Four years ago, Joseph Rocha was a committed and ambitious 18-year-old Navy recruit sure of two things: his love for his country and the corresponding desire to serve it in the Armed Forces, as well as his sexual orientation as a gay man. Unfortunately, the latter was very much in conflict with the former. Indeed, while sexual orientation need not be an issue for military personnel as there's truly no connection between one's ability to serve in the military and one's sexual orientation, it presents a daily struggle for many of the LGBT people serving in Army, Navy, and Marines, all (no) thanks to the antiquated and always-displaced "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on sexual orientation.

For laypeople, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means that while queer servicemembers who come out must be discharged from military duty, those who keep their sexual orientation private are welcome to serve. However, while keeping mum may mean keeping your job, remaining silent about one's sexual orientation does not make one immune to abuse by comrades and superiors, as evidenced by the great travesties Joseph experienced while serving in Bahrain. In his own words, "The irony of 'don't ask, don't tell' is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply." Additionally, LGBT servicemembers are not the only victims to this policy which is also used by chiefs to silence heterosexual servicewomen into not reporting rape and other sexual assault committed by male members of their units.

While Joseph Rocha's physical assignment was 28 months of duty working in a specialized canine unit trained to search for explosives and respond to threats. However, it was not working the long hours under harsh conditions that was so tricky as he loved his actual job; it was the "shop talk" as well as off-duty behaviors that make his life hell. By refusing to partake in group trips to prostitutes or even talk about sex, Joseph was deemed homosexual by default, which, therefore, made many of his fellow soldiers feel they had the "right" to abuse him while higher-ups looked on or even encouraged the behavior. Examples of the abuse included was was not limited to being forced to simulate oral sex on a comrade and being locked into a feces-filled dog kennel; he was being "punished" for his unwillingness to come out just because he just wanted to defend his country just as much if not more than these comrades.

However, for all the perpetrators and silent onlookers, not everyone turned a blind eye to the abuse; a new sailor reported what was going on yet his unit merely received a slap on the wrist and his chief even got promoted. Instead, a dear friend and supporter of his who was second in command was unfairly charged; that young female officer and mentor of his eventually killed herself out of desperation, making it seem that there was truly no safe way out of the cruelty and injustices committed by their own countrymen. (I'd say countrywomen, too, but while female soldiers may have gotten charged, it is my understanding that it was mostly or even entirely men committing these particular crimes.) Before taking her life, that officer gave Joseph a great gift that he considered "his dream come true," admission to a Naval Academy prep school that would guarantee a commission at Annapolis. However, worn down after the extended nightmare of abuse, his dream of becoming a Naval officer become too much to bear; Joseph came out and resigned from military service. Currently, a Youth Radio investigation of the abuses prompted the chief of naval investigations to review the case, something that Joseph hopes will reopen the case and hold top leadership accountable for what happened.

I find it disturbing that President Obama seeks to continue the war in Afghanistan when the toll on both Afghani citizens and US soldiers is devastating and only continues to grow. How ironic is this push when the majority of Americans and even his own party members now no longer support the war? I find it even more disheartening that President Obama continues to support institutionalized discrimination and, indirectly, even the abuse of LGBT soldiers displayed by Joseph Rocha's situation by not ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I am not completely a pacifist but believe the US should end it's military presence in Afghanistan as well as put an end to the injustice committed against queer American servicemembers through "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We shouldn't need stories like Joseph's to push us in that direction but once out, I believe we absolutely can no longer claim ignorance but rather demand action.

For more information, please check out the following:

'I Didn't Tell. It Didn't Matter.' Trying to serve his country, a young man faced bigotry and abuse
The Washington Post article by Joseph himself; the basis for this blog entry.

Sailor's Abuse Investigation Hub
The Youth Radio investigation's hub.

Navy Abuse Survivor Joseph Rocha Has a New Pal, Rep. Joe Sestak, and He Wants Answers
A Queerty.com citing the added support of Rep. Joe Sestak, a former admiral who seeks to support Joseph and other LGBT servicemembers.

Navy Launches Investigation on Joseph Rocha DADT Case
A related article from Care2.com, which also includes a video interview with Joseph and link to a petition supporting the Military Readiness Act that would allow queer soldiers to serve openly.

Activism 101
Scarleteen's article on getting started as an activist for the causes closest to your heart.

With everyone talking about it so much lately, thought I'd reprise the topic with some questions Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon.com asked me about sexting a few months ago, and the whole of my answers. To see her finished piece, you can meander over here.

Q: Where does "sexting" -- or for that matter, taking nude self- portraits or videos that they may or may not share with a significant other, friends or a crush -- fall within teenage sexual development?

I'd lump television in with the 'net and other new media when I say that with the media presence being what it has become, the need or desire to seen -- already a typical part of young adult development as well as human existence -- has become huge. And that's not just about sex, but because sexual development and exploration is also a big part of being a teen, as well as a part of life, period, and something that's still treated as provocative, particularly when in any way public, sex enters into this.

You're asking about teens using these kinds of media in terms of sex, but we could just as easily be talking about anything else. Teens tend to be creative and expressive, and teens often feel invisible in many ways, so doing things to be more visible has always been typical. When it comes to sex, this is hardly the first time we've seen young people publicize their sexuality: before we had this media, we had video cameras, before that film cameras, before that the written word, and all throughout, public or semi-public sex, ways of proclaiming to peers that one is sexually active, available to become so OR that a person is simply a sexual person, even if they've not intent of engaging in sexual activities with others. I'd say this is pretty normal behavior when it happens: teens just using the current media at hand to do the kinds of things young people exploring their sexuality and sexual identities have always done.

People forget that at the turn of the century, in the 20's, in the 50's and 60's, in the 80's and 90's... there has always been something like this, some way young people were expressing or publicizing sexuality that adults were freaking out about, quick to proclaim as abnormal, and quick to state as something new that had never gone on before. Not hardly!

Mind, it may be becoming a little more pervasive, simply because a) the media we have is so much more accessible and easy to distribute than what we have had before b) it's a lot easier to get that 15 minutes of fame for the average Joe or Jane than it has been in the past, and c) the advent of porn available en masse, so easily, as it is now and has been for most of their lives is going to make all of this feel very nonprovocative for some and very common.

Q: Can it be a healthy form of teenage sexual self-expression?

I'd say so, but I think when we're looking at whether or not something is healthy, we need to look at motives.

Is someone doing it to freely express themselves or share reciprocal (and I'd say that's important) levels of intimacy with a partner? Is it coming from a place, for them, that feels positive? Does it feel authentic, liberating, freeing? Is it a choice being made informedly when it comes to the risks? Are there some smart boundaries, including firm agreements about privacy? If so, I'd say we're probably looking at healthy behavior.

Or, is someone doing it out of a need to prove something to someone else, to try and earn love or attention? Does it feel like an act or like it's required? Is it being done to try and gain social status or due to peer pressure? Out of a self-injury impulse, to try and do themselves harm or get into trouble? Is it happening in the context of anything exploitive or abusive? If so, I'd say we should consider this may not be healthy.

Q: Is it reasonable or fair to allow that some teenagers will have sex but not that they will engage in this type of sexual experimentation?

Oh, absolutely. Just like it's fair or reasonable to say that a young person who "dresses like" (whatever arbitrary thing that means at the time) she is sexually active or talks about sex (in general, not "I had sex last week,") should not be assumed to be having any kind of partnered sex.

Q: Nowadays, how does the Internet and other technology play a role in teenagers' sexual development?

It's tough to say if it's any more or less than other types of media have in the past, but I think we can say that in a media-saturated culture, this has an impact. For one thing, teens hear and see more and more messages about sex from more and more sources, which is not necessarily negative: that can be positive, negative or neutral, depending on what the messages are, how much meaning they have to a teen, and what kind of protective factors a given teen has to filter those messages through, like intelligence, community or family support and involvement, self-esteem, education.

Another thing to bear in mind is how many teens are having relationships which are only or partially online recently, and so sometimes this IS the way they are having sex in those relationships: via photos, webcams, phone or cybersex. Again, while I know that these relationships have their own pitfalls, and adults have fears about them, I think we have to be careful about being too hasty to approach them with fear. After all, those kinds of sex don't present any risks of pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, and may also involve greater communication than in-person sex does.

I think we, as adults, often forget that teens today grew up with these tools: they're not new to them. This is the life they know, and a culture that's familiar.

Q: What are the main dangers of "sexting" and how should parents address concerns about that type of behavior?

We would be remiss not to talk about the law, because it's a big issue.

Well, according to the legal definitions of child pornography, a photograph of a nude minor distributed WILL fall under that umbrella, leaving the teen who made it and distributed it and the others who look at it and distribute it open to very serious criminal charges. These recent cases are not the first time teens have been held responsible in this way.

Obviously, that's a huge danger all by itself: child pornography is nothing close to a misdemeanor. Personally, when I have had teens ask me about this or talk about doing this, my own advice is that given the world that we live in -- both due to the legal ramifications, as well as the fact that we know this stuff can come back to haunt a person, especially women, far later in life than one'd expect, I advise against it, and suggest finding other ways, safer ways, less permanent ways, to express sexuality, especially before one is a legal adult.

Another is the fact that many teens aren't so great about respecting privacy or understanding that intimacy is...well, intimate.

In other words, Judy takes these photos and passes them to her boyfriend Joey. Joey thinks they are so hot and gets such an esteem-rush from Judy doing this for him that he sends them over to his friend, who thinks Judy is actually a big freak or a slut (or whatever a person's sexual pejorative term of choice is) and so sends it to a handful of people. Then the train has left the station and those photos can wind up in everyone's hands very fast.

Too, the velocity of young adult relationship is such that be it with this or any other kind of sex or intimacy, some teens wind up exposing a whole lot very soon, well before they've established if the person they are doing it for or with is trustworthy. Teen relationships also tend to start fast and end fast, so photos given to a partner can quickly belong to an ex, and many of teens don't exactly handle breakups well: some may use old nude photos to retaliate.

So, there is certainly a lot of room for serious betrayal or embarrassment, and something that felt good and liberating when done could really quickly turn into something that leaves the person who did it feeling very bad about themselves or their sexuality.

My advice to parents is pretty much the same no matter what kind of sexual behavior with teens we're talking about: ask questions, try and do so without issuing judgment, and just freaking listen. A parent can ask a teen, for instance, why this is something they're doing, and how they feel it benefits them. They can address the serious legal implications as well as the possible social issues to be sure a teen knows what the real deal is, and even make suggestions as to less risky ways to express sexuality or share intimacy with a partner. A parent can express their concerns and set limits and boundaries without going to a place that's about shaming sexuality or sexual expression, but rather, about helping a teen to make choices that don't derail their lives or put them at serious risk.

Parents might also do well to remember what ways they and/or their friends may have publicly or privately expressed their sexuality.

Q: Is there any difference in the way this behavior potentially impacts girls as opposed to boys?

I'd say so, simply because we still live in a sexist world, and a lot of the archaic double-standards about sex and women still have yet to go away. A girl who does this stuff is still likely to be presented by many as a slut, a boy, a stud, and I'd say you're less likely to see guys doing this in the first place. So far, far more girls are sexting than guys. When we do hear from teens about this who are engaging this, it seems it's much more often women than men, and much more often something women do for men than women do for female partners. I also more often hear young women expressing that this is asked for by male partners than I hear things the other way around.

Suffice it to say, there are more inherent dangers in a young woman appearing to be sexually available or sexual than there are for young men, both interpersonally and socially. The idea that a young woman is putting herself out there sexually -- especially for mass consumption, even if that wasn't her intent -- hasn't stopped carrying any of the same weight or heavy judgment than it has had in the past. If only.

We still are not in the historical or cultural place where a woman can fully express her sexuality for herself, by herself, whatever that may look like, and have that be supported, as supported as it is for men.

Want more from the cutting room floor? Check out The Cutting Room Floor: Masculinity, Gender and Orientation.

Have you been to the message boards lately?

If that's a yes, then you know about all the great content and discussions there are to join in on. If it's a no, then there's no better time than now to click over there, check things out, and add your piece!

The message boards provide a platform to not only address specific concerns but also post in threads about your experiences, share Scarleteen-related information from outside sources, and just chat with a purpose with some friendly folks from around the world.

Here are some discussions -- old and new -- that you may find interesting to read. You might even find yourself so inspired to join in, which is great because we'd love to have you!

Body, Soul, Sexuality

The best things YOU do for your body and soul!
Experiences With Therapy
Anxiety Busters
Starting college or university this Fall and looking for some support?
Birth Control Experiences (Quick Reference)

Partners, Parents, and Other People

Post-Breakup Helps
Meeting People Online
The Venting Room: Tell Adults to Stuff It
First Dates and Expectations
Are you/have you been in foster care?

Here and Queer

Why Come Out? Why Not?
Looking for support in accepting LGBT friends, family and partners?
Caster Semenya
Your favourite Queer films?

Getting Involved and Giving Back!

We need more volunteers!

--------------------------------------------------------

What is Spotlight on Scarleteen? Find out more by clicking here.

What's charting? It's a woman taking and keeping notes about her menstrual and fertility cycles. Those notes may be as little information as what days you get your period, may have more information, like what kind of flow you had and what discharges you experienced that month, or have just about anything and everything you can think of that does or may have something to do with your fertility cycle: your basal temperatures (a vaginal temp you take daily with a thermometer made for that purpose), your libido, your sleep patterns, the whole works. What information you include depends on what you want to observe, and what your needs in charting are.

When you hear about women charting their periods or overall fertility cycles, it's usually either about trying to conceive or using natural family planning (NFP or FAM) as a primary method of birth control. Many of you are not trying to conceive, and for many younger women, NFP isn't a sound sole or primary method for you either because your cycles are still all over the place or because you're also using condoms to help prevent sexually transmitted infections.

But charting your cycles doesn't have to be about natural family planning. Even if you're not trying to become pregnant, or aren't looking to use charting as a primary method of birth control, there are a bunch of reasons charting can be a big benefit to you.

Because there's nothing innately mysterious about a woman's body, and the last person it should be a mystery to is a woman.

This stuff we hear about how "mysterious" or "unfathomable" women and our bodies are is mostly a bunch of hooey (and it's not just men to blame: some women like to milk that feminist mystique stuff, too). Honestly, sometimes I think people say that to try and make women think we can't possibly figure out our own bodies with our own widdle brains, and to try and keep us in the dark to serve their own agendas: it's happened historically before, after all. Our reproductive systems are complex, sure, but much of them isn't a mystery unless we simply choose not to get to know them or don't know how to interpret our observations.

When you start to observe and document the patterns of your cycles it's not so mysterious as to why you have thinner discharge at some times and thicker discharge at other times. It's no longer such a headscratcher to see that in the last week of your cycle, you might have some appetite changes, feel bloated or have a tougher time managing stress. It's a lot easier to understand how pregnancy happens. And the next time someone throws some dumbass snark your way by asking if you're so moody because you're on your period, you can snap back that, as a point of fact, you are not, but the fact that you ovulated a couple days ago -- that and the buzzkill that is their company -- might be a culprit.

Because if you're inclined to worry a lot about pregnancy, it can help you ditch your panic.

Many young women who post at Scarleteen expect periods to come on the same date each month, and freak out when the period that came on the 10th last month hasn't come on the 10th of this one. But because each month doesn't have the same number of days in it, a period that comes on the same date each month would actually be an irregular period, not a regular one. To best know when to expect our periods -- when they are at least somewhat regular -- we count the number of days from cycle to cycle, rather than just paying attention to the date. But even then, we might have some variation sometimes, so if, over time, we've also charted things like changes in mood, changes in discharges and changes in temperatures, even if the dates aren't exactly when we expect, we'll have a pretty good idea of if and when periods will be likely to arrive.

Lately we've also seen young women terrified because (pardon me for a minute: shame on you TLC) they're still worried about pregnancy even when periods have ARRIVED. This is another way charting can be helpful. Yes, every now and then some women will have decidual bleeding they mistake for a period, and will not know they are pregnant until later in the pregnancy. Decidual bleeding -- which is the exception, rather than the rule, anyway -- isn't likely to come with all the symptoms of a period, and also doesn't often tend to come at exactly the same time a period would though. As well, nor will some things that typically happen when you aren't pregnant be taking place, like seeing fertile cervical mucus or like having basal temperature peaks and drops. You can observe all of those things in your charting.

Because even if you don't use or want to use NFP as a primary method, knowing your own fertility can be a great backup method for other non-hormonal methods of contraception.

Natural family planing can be a very effective method of birth control for those who can use it properly, and for those who do have regular cycles. In perfect use -- daily charting and NO intercourse during fertile periods -- it's 96% effective. In typical use, however, that drops to 80%. Failure is usually do to either not charting every day or not charting properly, interpreting the data from charting incorrectly, or from not abstaining from sex during fertile times. Some women aren't going to be able to use NFP correctly no matter how hard they try if they don't have regular cycles, can't chart every day, or have partners who just won't cooperate with not having intercourse during fertile times.

While a lot of people aren't the best candidates for NFP as a sole method, it can be a fantastic secondary method for those using barrier methods like condoms or cervical barriers or for those who use withdrawal. For instance, even with only typical, rather than perfect, condoms plus FAM/NFP can offer you 97% effectiveness: that's more effective than the pill used by itself in typical use.

Even if you're not perfectly regular every month, there will likely be some periods of time where you are regular, and can get a pretty good idea of when you are most likely to be fertile, and least likely to be fertile. If you know that, you can choose to only have sex at all, with your other method of birth control, during times when you're probably least likely to become pregnant. And using NFP as a backup has no side effects, no health risks, is totally free (save the $10-$20 for a basal thermometer) and doesn't interrupt sex in any way.

Because it can be part of a daily ritual to honor, care for and acknowledge a huge part of your body and mind.

Fine, I'm a big hippie. And yes, I know some of you bristle when I say things like this, suggesting I'm saying you should howl at the moon (though you should at least try it once) and fertilize your garden with menstrual blood (which is a fine fertilizer, by the way, but I digress). That acknowledged, I personally do think that having small, daily rituals to acknowledge and check in with the rhythms of our body, our body parts and our sexual health are positive and empowering. In the work that I do, I encounter a lot of women who are very uncomfortable with their own bodies, who see genitals as fine for sharing in sex, but not fine for their owners to engage with, or who feel like their sexual partners are the experts on, or the primary observers of, their bodies, rather than themselves. I just can't get on board with that and see any of that as the good stuff. Don't get me wrong, it's great when partners are also attentive and observant about your body, but I want you to be the person who knows your body best, and is most in tune with it. I also want you to feel comfortable in your own skin, and with all the parts of your body.

I also think it's important for a healthy self-image and a healthy sexuality to remember that our genitals are not just about sex and aren't just there for other people. We walk around with them all the time and they've been part of who we are since before we were born. Whether or not we have sex -- with partners, with ourselves -- whether or not we procreate, whether or not we have any problems, there our reproductive systems are, including our vaginas, doing their own thing all the time, ever-active and engaged with the rest of our bodies. It's tougher to feel ashamed about your genitals when you pay real attention to them every day. I know a lot of you look into the mirror regularly as a ritual, or have a zit-checking ritual, so why not add one that acknowledges this part of who you are?

Sometimes we also want to do things that would be easiest to do, or more pleasant, when we aren't menstruating or are prepared to menstruate. Knowing when to expect our periods helps us know that bringing a menstrual cup or pads when we're out in the middle of nowhere camping is mighty helpful, for example. Having a pretty good idea of when periods are going to arrive can help us better harmonize our lives with our bodies.

Because if at some point you want to become pregnant, being an ace with charting is going to make that a lot easier.

Given the age of most women who come to Scarleteen, few of you will have a hard time becoming pregnant. There seems to be a sort of Murphy's Law that often the women who want to become pregnant the least, or who are the least prepared for pregnancy, seem to wind up pregnant the most easily. As well, many of you don't want to become pregnant right now, some never do.

But later on in life -- and for some of you, now -- you may want to become pregnant. Some of you also may find you have issues with fertility, now or later. If you want to become pregnant at closest to the time that works best for you, or are having troubles becoming pregnant, charting will be your first step. And if you already know how, you won't have to wait on your own learning curve and a few months of new charting.

Because it can be great information to have for your healthcare provider.
If you're having issues or problems with menstruation, like painful cramps or heavy bleeding, having charts to show your doctor can help them figure out what the issue is much more quickly than they often can without those records. If you have concerns about your fertility, all a healthcare provider may need to do is look at your charts to determine if there's cause for that concern. Being an expert on your own cycle can also help you to feel more assertive when talking to doctors about any issues you might be having with them.

Because it can be a way to find out that your pill really IS working.

If you are using a hormonal method of birth control, you can't chart your natural fertility cycle because that method is suppressing and altering that cycle. However, we'll often hear from users of hormonal methods having a tough time believing that those methods are really working, so if you're in that boat you certainly could chart for a bit to discover that your charting looks very different from a chart of someone not using those methods. You might even just want to do it out of burning curiosity.

Toni Weschler's Ovusoft site has a huge archive of sample charts you can look at to see what charts look like for a wide variety of women: http://www.ovusoft.com/ourtcoyf/gallery/

For instance, this one is an example chart of a woman charting her first month after using the birth control pill for 12 years. Compare that with this one, the chart of a woman not in that situation who did conceive in the month the chart is from. See how different they are, even though that first woman is no longer taking the pill?

Because it's cool, and you can really geek out on it.
Can we ever have enough things to get our geek on with? I think we all know the answer is no.

So, want to start charting? My favorite simple online tool for charting periods lately is this one: http://monthlyinfo.com. It's not as handy if you want to do mucus and temps, as it won't calculate those, but you can add notes to each day if you want to, and those notes can include temps and mucus, or whatever else you'd like. It's a simple, fun interface and you can even set it to send you a nice, friendly reminder your period is coming a few days in advance.

Here are a few more online options:

• http://www.ovusoft.com/
• http://www.mymonthlycycles.com/
• http://www.cyclendar.com/
• http://www.fertilityfriend.com/

Know that some online tools without entries for cervical mucus observations or basal temperatures will make predictions about when you ovulate. Be aware that those kinds of predictions may not be accurate, and are usually based more on averages than your own unique cycle. So, if you're using charting as a primary or secondary form of contraception, those won't be great choices. If you want online tools to use for that, or in your own paper charting, be sure to choose those which also require cervical mucus and basal temps.

If you want to chart on paper, here are a couple good blank charts:

• http://pregnant.thebump.com/getting-pregnant/fertility-tools/articles/tool-fertility-chart.aspx
• http://www.lunapads.com/product.aspx?ProductID=133&deptid=6
• http://www.gardenoffertility.com/fertilitycharts.shtml

We have a great piece by Kate Storm on FAM and the specifics of charting on site here: Get With the Flow: All About FAM. It also includes a printable version of the charting calendar from S.E.X. Happy charting!