Obama budget eliminates abstinence funding, but not all looks good

Obama's 2010 federal budget eliminates funding for abstinence-only sex education. But...

Of the $110 million that are going to state-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, 75% are going to “evidence-based” programs, while 25% are going “new models” which aren’t explicitly defined. The danger here is that Congress might still try to slip abstinence-only programs into the budget during the appropriations process. David Obey, the Democratic chair of the Appropriations Committee, has tried to increase funding for abstinence-only programs in the past, and we need to make sure that he and his colleagues don’t allow this to happen now.

Also, the budget left the Hyde Amendment intact, which means that women on Medicaid or who rely on other federal health services will not be able to get abortions that way.

A step in the right direction, but still not a complete win, and rather disappointing.

h/t Feministe.

I Know It's the Apocalypse, but Can't It Wait 'Til I Kiss Your Lips?

This week Time Magazine had "A Brief History of Abstinence" following Bristol Palin's interview.
It does a decent job of explaining the history of abstinence from its biblical roots, noting most of the burden fell (and continues to fall) on the bride. The article also mentions that movements like True Love Waits claim that abstinence is the only way to prevent HIV infections.
The article, however, does not mention the shame many groups and religions place on those who have had sex.

I think the Black Kids said it best:

"If true love waits, its a big mistake
No need to feel ashamed."

Feminists have Teeth - the movie

Now on DVD, Teeth is a movie about a high school girl who finds out she has vagina dentata - teeth in her vag. The synopsis on the website says:

High school student Dawn works hard at suppressing her budding sexuality by being the local chastity group's most active participant. Her task is made even more difficult by her bad boy stepbrother Brad's increasingly provocative behavior at home. A stranger to her own body, innocent Dawn discovers she has a toothed vagina when she becomes the object of violence. As she struggles to comprehend her anatomical uniqueness, Dawn experiences both the pitfalls and the power of being a living example of the vagina dentata myth.

This movie is so fascinating because it exposes a cultural, rarely spoken but widely known, fear of vaginas and subverts that to give power to vaginas and women, as possessors of vaginas. Toothed vaginas are sometimes "subtly" hidden in films (Pirates of the Caribbean 2, anybody? That Kraken is a huuuuge toothed vagina), but this might be the first time anyone's addressed vagina dentata directly in a film.

I'm going to talk about different aspects of the plot now, so if you plan on seeing it and don't want it to be ruined, stop reading.

The film makes it clear that Dawn has never explored her own sexuality, much less seen what her own vag looks like. As a vocal member of her local chastity group, she rails against sex before marriage and wears a promise ring for her future husband. When she fantasizes about the boy she likes, it's in wedding gear - don't worry, no masturbation for her, though.

The cultural fear of vaginas is so widespread and intrenched that none of the high school health textbooks show vaginas - they just have big stickers over those pages, while the male reproductive system is clearly displayed. Students question it and try tearing the stickers off (hoorah!), but this scene points to a larger issue of women not knowing fundamental facts about their bodies - a point Cara neatly touched on recently over at The Curvature.

When Dawn is sexually assaulted, it's by a fellow member of the chastity group who "fell" once before. His reasoning for raping her? "I haven't jerked off since Easter!" and "You're still pure!" However, his lame excuses for rape are no match for her vagina teeth, and we get a nice genital shot - post attack. Not for those who don't like gore, I must say.

The vagina dentata doesn't attack anything that enters her vagina, only non-consensual and harmful entry - it, at first, is a knee-jerk reflex, although she does seem to be able to attack at will later on in the movie. The mythology presented in the movie says that a hero must do battle with the woman to break her power. After the rape and gyno visit (both which end in bloodshed), Dawn goes to Ryan's house (a boy who likes her) because she has no idea where to go. She is obviously shaken and unnerved, and he takes her presences as an opportunity for sex. Dawn takes a bath and when she comes out, he has candles lit and music playing. At some point, he gives her some sort of pill and wine and she ends up passing out. When she comes to, Ryan's playing with her breast and they end up having sex. Here's a bit of their conversation:

Dawn: You can't.
Ryan: Do you want me to stop?
Dawn: No.
Ryan: Good. (whatthefuck?)
Dawn: But they'll get you.
Ryan: Who?
Dawn: The teeth.
Ryan: Come on.
Dawn: Seriously.
Ryan: No, no, look. I'm conquering them. See? Yeah, I'm the hero. (bullshit, bullshit bullshit!)

Can we point out the issues here? First off, since he drugged her, it's sexual assault. Second, there was no positive affirmation of consent, however, she does say she doesn't want him to stop. However, since she's been drugged, she can't legally give her consent. Third, can we stroke his male ego just a little more? Conquering? Hero? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

The conquering hero does meet the teeth, however. The next morning, they're having sex again (completely consensual this time!) and Ryan answers his phone during sex. He brags about sleeping with Dawn while he's inside of her - bad move on his part. Ryan loses his "conquering hero" status and his junk when Dawn's teeth take offense to the mid-sex phone call and bragging.

Here, the film subverts the myth and the need for a hero to conquer the vagina, because even the hero falls victim to the teeth. It's not that the vagina needs a hero to conquer it, it's that all sex needs to be consensual. Get that? CONSENSUAL. It's the literal actualization of my dad's favorite phrase for high school boyfriends - abuse it and you lose it. I'm glad the film blows apart the concept of a vag-conquering hero, since frankly, I don't need one and I doubt anyone else does either.

I won't ruin the whole movie for everyone, but let's just say that Dawn is baaaaadass and by the end of the film, she comes to fully embrace her vagina dentata and its abilities.

By the way, does anyone else feel like this movie poster is too "teen-sex comedy" and less "get my consent or I'll chomp off whatever's inside me"?

Seriously, I wish I had teeth in my vagina. Soooo bad. Now I'm just waiting for a movie about menstruation saving the world.

Let's Talk About Sex

No, seriously, we really need to.
In a great Alternet post last week, Joyce McFadden explored why American mothers refuse to have honest discussions about sex with their daughters and the consequences on their daughters’ lives and relationships.

“I think, as Americans, our fixation with the taboo of sexuality causes us to overlook its poetry and its greater meaning in our lives, and then we pass this limited view of sex onto our children.”

I am not a mother, so I can only speak from the daughter’s perspective, but I know my mother and I have never had a healthy discussion about sex. In fact, we’ve only had one. And I was nine. I grew up in a strictly Catholic household and went to 14 years of Catholic school (I’m eighteen), so, unsurprisingly, before college, I had never had an honest discussion about sex or sexuality (or even a sex ed class). In fourth grade, my mother told me the basics: sex was what made babies. No, it didn’t hurt. Yes, you were naked. And you never had sex until your married. And that’s all the information I ever got from her. The rest I learned from friends, eavesdropping, Cosmopolitan, and Judy Blume books.

There, I learned to focus on male pleasure, not my own. I learned that the purpose of sex was to have babies, not to create intimacy. I learned to hate abortion, but not how to put a condom on. I learned how to make my body look desirable, but not how to channel that desire.

And why not? Why couldn’t my mother have a healthy on-going discussion with me about sex? I don’t know, but like most women, it was probably a combination of embarrassment, lack of understanding about her own sexuality, and discomfort at viewing me as a sexual being.

But, this is wrong. With the lack of comprehensive sex ed in our schools, the media’s constant focus on a specific type of female sexuality, and the mess of messages from the religious right pervading both pulpits and political speeches, the mother-daughter or father-daughter discussion of sex needs to be honest and often. We need to set aside our embarrassment, as both parents and children, and learn to embrace discussion of sex and sexuality with each other. Talking about our embarrassments, misunderstandings, concerns, and confusion can only bring us closer.

Please let’s set aside the birds and the bees, let’s just talk about sex.

Decidedly Not Revolutionary

Another thought-provoking, article from the New York Times:

Sex, an always controversial practice, is the topic, as the author highlights the growing number of abstinence clubs on elite college campuses. Harvard has its own, secular club, "True Love Revolution," led by Janie Fredell; the club's goal is to spread the message of abstinence and convince students' to opt out of the "hookup culture."

Now, from a feminist perspective, I have no qualms against saying no to sex. Pressure, whether individual or societal, is damaging. Women (and men) should have total autonomy in their sexual decisions.

However, I take issue with the implications of the message, and the way it has been presented to Harvard students.

Firstly, the club promotes abstinence until marriage. Yet, many lifestyles do not have the option of marriage, marriage, itself, is a flawed institution, and is not the only way to declare love for a partner. However, it is the life goal of most members of the organization: "Finding true love for me is the point of life,” said Fredell.

I agree that finding someone you are compatible with, care for, and want to spend time with is an important aspect of life. I disagree that it should be the point of one's life. Marriages end in divorce, more often than they don't, and when life has become simply a search for that "true love" which has gone awry, pain is more acute and, often, women how have not had steady careers due to raising children and caring for their partner are left in financial ruin. One of the reasons that many members promote abstinence is based on the hormone Oxycontin, which heightens a sense of connection to one's sexual partner, and if the relationship is not stable, one will feel that instability more acutely and feel much more pain upon its end. However, I believe that to experience the break-up of a marriage, without having had relationships with any other partner would lead to an even more acute sense of loss and perhaps fear to now be living in a world where one knows so little.

My bigger issue with this club is the way it frames masculinity. The clubs other leader, Leo Keliher, said that masculinity was “being able to deny yourself for the sake of the woman.” “To have that kind of self-control is really what it means to be a man."

To define masculinity in direct opposition to femininity is troublesome. It reinforces stereotypical gender roles and norms. By framing masculinity as denial for the sake of women, is to basically claim that women must be protected by men, that women are weaker, more innocent and pure, and that men must deny their urges in order to keep women pure. It is to deny that women also enjoy engaging in sex, and it equates virginity with innocence, both very outdated and disproved concepts.

Again, I truly support people's decisions to abstain from sex. However, I believe that the approach taken by groups like True Love Revolution is faulty. It reverts back to gender roles and traditional marriages and calls for ignorance of one's own body.

Also, what's with the rose? Does it remind anyone else of Georgia O'Keffe's paintings, which were definately NOT flowers? Just wondering. Ha.