Guess who’s back, back again…

29 10 2008

Alright, I’ve been gone for an ungodly amount of time, for which I apologize. I was on bloggy hiatus for a while for a myriad of reasons, but I’m back and will now attempt to post with some kind of regularity. Sorry for abandoning you. (If you’re still reading).

Anyways, this thread over at Amber’s got me thinking. Well, in a tangential way, really.

I was talking to a friend once, and I honestly forget what this conversation was about. Anyways, I said something along the lines of “Well, there’s nothing wrong with having a lot of sex, as long as you’re safe and smart about it.”

She replied “Yeah, but I think there’s an element of low self-esteem that goes into that.”

She might be right, at least some of the time. Yes, some people do have sex because they need validation. However, why is having sex always the thing people like to analyze to death? Especially women having sex? Especially teenage girls having sex.

“Sexually active teenage girl”, at least if you watch TV, has become some kind of synonym for delinquent. I was looking through the “Be on the Show” section of the Dr. Phil website, just out of boredom. (No, you will not be seeing Miss Nomered coming to a TV station near you.) Anyways, an upcoming show is based on this:

“Teen daughter sexually active?”

Groan.

Granted, 13-year-olds having sex is often somewhat concerning, as most 13-year-olds don’t have the maturity level to deal with that. But, what about the 16, 17, and 18 year olds? Older teens have been having sex forever, why is it considered so horrible in the eyes of parents and the media? Especially if the one having sex is a girl?





Not this shit again.

5 07 2008

This. And this.

I’m getting such an 80’s/90’s Judas Priest/Marilyn Manson vibe from this story, it’s not funny.

It’s all bullshit, of course. And yes, I realize I am a couple months late on this, but I had to say something.

I’m not emo. Not at all. I wear bright colors; I shop at H&M and Forever 21, I enjoy things like listening to folk music and actually having political views. I’m definitely not a My Chemical Romance fan, so, rest assured, I have no ulterior motives about writing this.

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE EMO.

Hannah Bond was a troubled kid, no doubt. And her suicide is a huge tragedy. But do people seriously believe that My Chemical Romance/the so called emo “cult” led her to do it? Wow. People are so eager to blame bad shit on dumb teenage trends that it’s actually unbelievable. I remember Crazy Bones (you know, those little plastic things) being banned at my elementary school because some kid threw one at another kid’s head, but that’s a story for another time.

Wow. This media sensationalism is out of control.

About the self-harming: of course people who self-harm and are confronted about it are going to make something up! Granted, the “emo initiation” story is a bit more inventive than what people usually use (the cat scratched me, etc.), but didn’t it occur to anyone that she might have been lying? That’s what addicts do. And yes, self-harm can be an addiction.

Oh yeah, and no red flags were set off by the fact that the girl said that she wanted to kill herself? Do people really think that was all part of the “emo” fad?

The stupid abounds.

(By the way, I had a lovely Pride. Nothing that needed its own post, though. Just fun times.)





Teenage Sex Panic, part eleventy-seven

26 06 2008

So I’m sure almost everyone has heard of the somewhat mythical “Teenage Pregnancy Pact” by now. In fact, I’m not even going to link any stories about it. In case you somehow don’t know about it – Google is your friend.

Anyways, the media (and followers of it), are having a classic moral panic. If there was indeed some “pregnancy pact” (and as more is revealed, it’s sounding like more and more like somewhat of an urban legend – see Rainbow Parties), that’s messed up. There. I said it. But what would make it messed up is not that teens were having sex – it’s that they were missing enough love and validation in their lives to seemingly “need” the unconditional love that having a baby would bring. That, and they don’t seem terribly intelligent or mature.

By the way… IT’S. NOT. ABOUT. JUNO. Or Jamie Lynn Spears. Give me a break.

Why is everyone so afraid to be even the slightest bit positive about teenage sexuality? Let’s get this straight: unprotected sex is bad. Sex before you’re ready, or for reasons other than simply wanting to have sex (i.e. societal pressure or pressure from your partner), is probably also not the greatest idea. But, as said before, teenagers are sexual beings. And, no, admitting that does not mean that you want to have sex with teenagers. Teens will have sex, regardless of what scare tactics you use to dissuade them, and, as Seinfeld would say, not that there’s anything wrong with that. So, good sex education and readily available sex education is in everyone’s best interest.

Back to the moral panic. Am I the only one who’s realized how sexist it is? It always surrounds the fact that the pristine innocence of young girls is being tarnished. Girls are losing their virginity* in high school! Girls are dressing slutty! Girls are giving blowjobs! And, yes, while some girls do said things because they have low self-esteem, are trying to impress their friends or their partners, a lot aren’t. For example, some girls (some, not all) enjoy giving oral sex, or at least, don’t mind it. And, apparently, the boys reciprocate more than you might think, according to what I’ve read.

Oh yeah, a quick note to the media: IT’S NOT ALWAYS WITH A BOY! Us crazy queers do have sex too, and for the queer girls, it’s not just with boys, because we’re miserable and closeted. Some of us have sex with women! And you can date, or sleep with boys, and still be queer. Bisexuality, pansexuality, and general non-descript queerness do exist, and it’s not just because it’s “trendy” either. Transpeople exist too – of course, not a lot of people consider that, outside of concern of the “Oh my god, you’re so unusual!” variety.

Wow. Am I getting off-track here, or what?

Anyways my point is: before you freak out about it, teenage sexuality isn’t as big a problem as you make it out to be.

*I hate the concept of “virginity”. But that is another rant for another time.





Teenagers as Sexual Beings

7 05 2008

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while; I was sick all last weekend, I’m moving this weekend, and I have an AP history exam on Friday. So this will be brief.

I’ve heard a lot lately about the so-called “sexualization of children”. Believe me, I think thongs made for 10-year-olds are creepy. But, a lot of the time, when people talk about “sexualization”, they’re talking about the condition of teenagers (usually older ones) being sexual.

Adolescents are sexual beings. Almost all of them, (unless they’re asexual), have sexual thoughts and urges from time to time; a good number of them actually do sexual things with other people. I’m pretty sure it’s been this way for ages; I don’t think rap music/the internet/whatever the scapegoat of the month is suddenly introduced this concept. It’s just the way we are. I think there is a difference between being sexual and being sexualized; one is not necessarily the result of the other. I think teens need to take more ownership of their sexuality, not just supress it because the powers that be feel it’s “inappropriate.” Because it’s natural. I don’t think it makes one a victim of media brainwashing or peer pressure; I think it just is what it is.

What are your thoughts on this?





Age of Consent Raised in Canada

3 05 2008

It’s officially, as of last Thursday, been raised to 16.

Honestly, my feelings are quite mixed about this. Primarily, I was worried that there wouldn’t be a close-in-age exemption, but there is. So, hopefully, we won’t have another Genarlow Wilson case, which is primarily, what I was worried about.

However, I worry about how this is going to impact young people’s access to sexual health services, such as contraceptives, abortion, and things like pelvic exams. By law, doctors, teachers, and other adults in positions of authority are required to report suspected child abuse; under this law, having sex with a 14 or 15 year old constitutes child abuse – and I’m guessing a lot of people will choose to ignore the fact that the close-in-age exemption exists. How is a 14-year-old girl going to get access to birth control if she can’t ask her doctor for it, for fear that legal action could be taken?

And this article has it all wrong. Hyperbole much?

Under the old law, it was still illegal for adults in positions of power (teachers and whatnot), to have sex with teenagers. And, no, a 14 or 15 year old is not a “child”. They are a teenager.

And you gotta love this line: (sarcasm, of course):

“No longer must parents and police watch as their children are lured off to some other city with a man who promises them love and excitement.”

No. Just, no. Kidnapping was always illegal. Sex trafficking was always illegal. Luring someone under 16 from their home – none of it was legal in the first place!

Most child/youth sexual abuse doesn’t start this way. The vast majority of it takes place in the home. But, of course, it’s so much easier to look at the scary men coming from the outside, rather than tackling the monsters hiding in homes around the world.





Teenager Shows Back; World Explodes

30 04 2008

There are few things the mainstream media does better than feigning outrage. And the outrage-of-the-week now? 15-year-old Miley Cyrus posed for some supposedly “salacious” photos where she shows her back. And her bare shoulders.

Cue moral panic. The mainstream media (not to mention the not-so-mainstream media) has gone into a frenzy about how the pictures are “kiddie porn”,  and how it’s an example of how we’re “sexualizing” the young’uns.

The latter can sometimes can be a legitiamte complaint, although it’s horribly infanitlizing at times. I mean, people tend to forget that I am only a year or two older than Miss Hannah Montana herself. And implying older teenagers can only be “sexualized”, instead of occasionally expressing their own sexuality is a little insulting. Because we all know teenagers, especially teenage girls, aren’t supposed to have any semblance of sexuality that they actually express themselves. Lest, you know, one of us ends up pregnant. Or having (gasp) a male attracted to us. It’s all so horribly heteronormative, not to mention sexist.

Have you ever noticed how often females, between the ages of, say, 15-25 are referred to as children? You know, referring to a 19-year-old as a “teenage girl”, and how everyone seems to call people of my gender and age range “child”, “little girl”, “baby” (as in “You’d be a baby having a baby!”), but almost never as a “young woman”? And how males of the same age are almost invariably referred to as “young men”? Most people wouldn’t dream of calling a 17-year-old male a “little boy” or “child”.

This is not me trying to grow up too fast. This is me trying to get people to have some basic respect for my intelligence and maturity. And I really do wish people would acknowledge, without panicking, that teenagers do think about sex and sexuality, and no, it’s not always a bad thing!

As anyone who knows me can attest to, I wear t-shirts and jeans most of the time. I rarely wear makeup, except for a bit of lipstick once in a while. But I also own a miniskirt or two, a couple low-cut tops, and some other miscellaneous clothing that could be termed “revealing”. It does not make me feel good to know that if I choose to wear something strapless or backless, I’ll be held up as an example of media brainwashing, or the moral decay of society.

And no, it is not about me having low self esteem or wanting to pick up guys. You know, because gays couldn’t actually, like, exist or anything! I rarely “dress to impress”, when I do, it’s usually because I want a cute dyke to notice me. But I rarely do that. But you know what? There’s nothing actually wrong with wanting to feel “sexy” once in a while. I hardly think my looks are all I am.

Dressing a certain way does not make someone vacuous or stupid. In fact, if you think wearing something slightly revealing means someone is being reduced to a “sex object”, I think you may be the one with the sexist attitude.