Sex Ed

I've been meeting a lot of new people lately (as a result of travelling out of town for three weddings this month) and quite a few of them have asked me what areas of law I'm interested in. When I tell them copyright and reproductive rights, several of them have them said, in a questioning tone, "Reproductive right?". I'm guessing that either having it chase copyright confuses, or that people simply aren't used to hearing the term itself. So them I explain-- and I explain that, while I'm a big fan of Planned Parenthood's mantra of "safe, legal, and rare", my main interest is working on the rare element.

I am definitely a big fan of easy, cheap abortion access. I think anyone who wants one, for any reason, should be able to get one. And I do mean any reason-- including even sex-selection of children.

But even though I'm in full support of abortions, I recognize that getting one sucks. Both kinds sound pretty awful-- induced miscarriage or surgical, either way your insides are getting twisty and the end result sounds like PMS times 100. Plus, in many states, it's hard to get an abortion-- either it's hard to physically get to a facility, it's hard to come up with the money, or it's there are laws regarding the age of the woman seeking one, or other conditions she has to jump through. And I know there are other women out there who hate, hate, hate the "rare" part of PP's motto, but by wanting to make abortion rare, I'm not suggesting we should attatch any judgement to women who get abortions, or that we should make it harder for them to do so-- I actually think we should make it a lot easier to get an abortion than it currently is.

But I still think that, instead of going through the understandably unpleasant experience of getting an abortion, it might be better if more women can prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever occuring in the first place. When I say I want to make abortions more rare, I want to give women more agency, not less. I want every child-- and every pregnancy-- to be a wanted one.

And so I want to work with a reproductive rights group on legislation to get better, comprehensive sex education in school, and better, less expensive contraceptives. I want girls to be educated about the pros-- and the cons-- of different forms of birth control, and I want health care to provide them with regular, affordable visits to a gynecologist-- preferably an awesome, non judging one like mine-- to discuss sex and their options. I don't want sex ed to consist of scare tactics and horrifying pictures of late-stage, untreated stds-- that's not going to convince limbic-system thinkers of anything. I'd rather they get presented with actual facts, statistics, and information-- including about STDs, but also about the way sex can mess with your chemicals to make you feel emotions that have no basis in reality, and also the fact that sex is normal, and can lead to other health benefits due to some of the same chemical reactions.

I do definitely think teens should be discouraged from having sex-- but I don't think they should be lied to, or misled through omission. And no matter what is said, at least some of them are going to have sex anyway. So condoms, birth control, diaphrams, shots-- all should be discussed in class, along with their rates of success. And then, the class should make sure to mention that certain kinds of lube will degrade certain kinds of condoms. And teach kids how to properly use a condom, and that antibiotics and grapefruit juice will cancel out certain types of birth control, and that yes, it does matter what time you take your pill. In addition, I think that they should go through basic cycle charting with girls, so that they can at least understand what's happening with their bodies when, and how the whole fertilization and pregnancy process actually works.

The last step, of course, is making sure kids have access to the birth control-- and again, my hippie self is all in favor of subsidizing it for them, through free condoms at school, and reduced price visits to a gynecologist and birth control.

If anyone is serious about reducing teen pregnancy-- or reducing abortion-- I'd hope they'd be on board for increased sex ed and contraceptive access. But somehow, I think that a lot of people who think I'm wrong in wanting safe and legal abortions to be easy to obtain will also think i'm wrong in wanting to give people the materials to avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

The Ring

After my friends found out I was engaged, they all said congratulations.

And then, most of the girls asked to see the ring. When I told them I was wearing a stand-in (my deceased great-aunt's) until the jewelers resized mine, they wanted descriptions, pictures, karat size, cut--- all the little details that I actually didn't notice, or even care about, when I got it because I was just so ridiculously happy to be engaged.

And I do love my ring. It's pretty! But what it looks like should be relevant to no-one except JD and myself. And it is pretty-- I like it, and I like that he picked it out, since I enjoy wearing something that reflects him. I also love wearing the ring because I like the symbolism of it-- I love that it is something that says I'm not single anymore and no one has any reason to hit on me. It's a sign that should forever free me of unwanted male attention (though I have been told that some guys will take it as a challenge).

And yes, I've thought before about ring style-- daydreamed about what I want. But at the end of the day, what matters isn't so much the aesthetics but the commitment it symbolizes. But the aesthetics seem predominant in the minds of others. And it feels weird to know that at least some people will be judging me/him/us on the size/shape/stone of it-- even though I know every judges everyone on pretty much everything, consciously or not.

There's a part of me that wishes there was some sort of culturally significant public symbol for men to wear to declare engagement. I've seen "mangagement" rings, and they're just-- kind of ick. Or at least not in JD's aesthetic as far as I can tell. And anything that is would probably be mistaken for a wedding ring-- which is another, separate symbol. But as it is, I'm the only on of the two of us who'll be wearing a symbol until our wedding. I know some people see the ring as unequal-- a negative status symbol that declares male ownership. But I think that that interpretation says more about the individuals involved and their view of male-female equality than it does about me. I wear a ring, but JD most certainly does not own me. We're equal partners, and we acknowledge that fact. Wearing a ring doesn't change that element, and doesn't reflect that a woman belongs to a man-- instead, it simply reflects that I've chosen him, and he's chosen me, and that we have chosen to be one.

And the ring, while just an object, is a public symbol of the love he has for me, and the love he gives to me. And I think that is an absolutely lovely thing.

Love

I am so in love that it's almost kind of ridiculous.

And I am so happy, that I'm almost flying.

See, last night, the best thing that has ever happened to me happened.

JD proposed.

Now, you can get grumpy about me saying this is the best thing that happened to me, but I don't give a fuck. You can value jobs, degrees, wealth, and ambition however you want, but while I value those things, I value love more.

I value love in all its forms, and for my own life, romantic love most highly of all.

And now, I get to start planning for our wedding, and our marriage, and our life together, and I'm the happiest I've ever, ever been. I am deeply in love, we are a fantastic match, and I'm just so-- lucky to have found him already.

Love is a wonderful, beautiful thing.

And I love JD with all my heart and soul.

Curves

Aesthetically, I love curves. The marks in the margins of my notebooks are often swooping, weaving, overlapping curving lines, forming ovals and ellipses and circles. And I enjoy curves on people too-- the curve of a smile, the oval of a wrist, the dip between ribcage and hips.

It's funny, then, that something so aesthetically awesome has come to be so... divisive.

Divisive?

Yes, divisive. Or at least, upsetting to a surprisingly large number of women-- at least, when used in two relatively common ways:

1. Real Women Have Curves

2. Random Actress, a curvy young woman

The two cause problems for different reasons-- one, because some feel it excludes the validity of slender women, and the second, because some feel it renders heavier women irrelevant and non-existent.

So, what is curvy? I prefer to use it as an accurate description-- not a euphemism for anything, but a description of a woman who has multiple noticeable curves. So, I'm curvy. So is Scarlett Johanson. And Crystal Renn. And Katherine Heigl. And Emme. Who isn't? Callista Flockhart. Beth Ditto.

Somewhere along the way, "curvy" came to be a polite euphemism for "fat". A way of describing someone without having to use a word that has unsavory connotations-- though the Fat Acceptance movement is trying to eliminate those connotations, as they should. And somewhere after that, someone came up with the phrase "real women have curves" -- yes, it's the title of a play and a movie, but it also turned into a rallying cry-- one that was used to decry thin women as sexless, as unsexy, as boyish and immature-- as undesirable in the eyes of men. In a way, its ironic that women were tearing down others in their quest for self-celebration, and that they were using to idea of male acceptance to do so-- but that habit, unfortunately, is not linked just to weight.

Crying "real women have curves" harms all women, just as the patriarchy hurts all people, because its celebrating the idea that there is one right way to be-- in this case, a larger, softer body frame. The curves in this phrase don't just apply to T and A either-- and having only T and A probably wouldn't get a chick in the club with most women who chanted that-- because the phrase isn't even about celebrating having curves, its about celebrating being a woman who isn't thin, about saying that you are somehow better because thin women must starve themselves, or be bitchy, or be frigid, or be sluts, or be vapid, or... you get the idea. The core of it might have been women building themselves up, but when you're defining a "real woman" that narrowly, you can't use that definition to build yourself up without tearing yourself down. And yes, society does privilege thin women-- but that doesn't mean they're the enemy, and it doesn't mean they don't have their own body issues.

So when you see one woman chanting about this on a message board, or chanting about how boring women who diet/exercise are, or vapid, or narcissistic, or whatever, some other woman will get offended and post about how she/her best friend is thin, curveless, and awesome.

And then the flame war starts, and I get angry about how everyone thinks everyone else's body is their business.

Curvy also pisses people off when its used as a basic description though, neither celebratory nor negative-- especially when its describing someone hot, young, and blonde, like Scarlett Johansen. Commenters tend to immediately react to the fact that someone thin is being described as curvy! That that's not what it means! Look at her, she's not curvy! except... if you've looked at her lately... she is. She looks like an hourglass; her body has multiple, drastic curves. But many women who have claimed curvy as a description for themselves react negatively-- perhaps because they feel it's yet another media push to ignore them, perhaps because they're so used to hearing curvy as a euphemism for fat that they think the actress must be being described as fat. And if she's fat, what does that make all of us? Heavens!

Clearly, I think all the fights over this are silly, and missing the point. You keep referring to whatever body shape you want as curvy, and I'll keep referring to hourglasses as curvy. That's not the real problem here.

The problem is that American society-- including the women who decry this sort of thing--values certain body shapes over others. And is willing to apply negative connotations to certain body shapes. And that we, as a whole, are willing to internalize those negative connotations, to use them as weapons against each other, and to continue this harmful trend. The next time a friend tries to compliment you by saying you've lost weight, or that you look slim, as some kind of shorthand, think about what's being said and how you want to respond. The next time you take notice of someone's weight, pay attention to where your mind goes. And the next time you look at yourself in the mirror, think more about the fit of your clothes than what the body under them could/should/might be described as.

What’s a girl in a happy relationship want without marriage, anyway?

Today's post is, again, a guest blog from a friend. After reading Jenny's post, Melt wanted a chance to put forth some representation from the non-marrying side of things. Melt is living in the middle of cornfields, raising two adorable kittens, getting her PhD and trying to figure out how to get people to use condoms and not spread STDs. She kickboxes and does yoga, is learning to cook, and always has something to fun--and intelligent-- to say.

It’s always interesting to me when I read well-thought-through defenses of young marriage. I genuinely loved and enjoyed reading Jenny’s recent guest post on this blog. I thought it made sense, I thought it was eloquent and heartwarming, and I wish her all the happiness in the world.

But I must admit, part of why I appreciate reading well-reasoned defenses of young marriage is because I am so frequently enraged by the all-too-ubiquitous insulting and offensive defenses. As a 21-year old woman who has been dating her 24-year old (25 in 1 month!) boyfriend for two and a half years, our commitment has been questioned time and time again. “If you’re really meant to be together, wouldn’t you know by now? And if you know you want to be together forever…what’s the point in putting off marriage? Don’t you think that your hesitation about marriage should tell you something about how you really feel about your relationship?” “Don’t you think you’re being a bit selfish moving across the country and leaving your boyfriend just because you feel like staying in school?” “I mean, we all have different priorities…I guess you’re just putting yourself before your relationship, and I mean, that’s OKAYYYY, it’s just, you know, I guess I’ve just already reached a point of maturity where I can’t be that selfish anymore.” Well, you know what? I agree with Jenny: Maybe go fuck yourself.

The fact of the matter is that marriage simply doesn’t make sense for my relationship right now. I’m in my first year of graduate school, trying to live on my $16,000/year stipend without taking out any loans (and so far I’m succeeding, miraculously!) My graduate program has me living in central Illinois for the next 5-6 years. It’s a horrible economy, with people all over the country unable to find jobs, and my boyfriend was offered a full-time job in North Carolina. I’m finally learning how to live on my own – to cook for myself, clean for myself, make Excel spreadsheets to do my own budgeting, and then make the appropriate budgetary sacrifices to make ends meet and pay my own rent, utilities, cable bills, grocery bills, and other miscellaneous expenses each month. I’m trying to become financially independent. I’m trying to make it on my own. I’m trying to prove to myself that I can take care of my own life. I’m trying to make sure that no matter what happens in our relationship, in my future, I know I can make it on my own and be self-reliant. This simply isn’t the time in my life when I want to be living my life for another person. I need to be selfish. I need to strike out on my own and build my own life before I can feel comfortable enough to share it with another person.

And then there are the other things. I don’t feel comfortable being the one responsible for making major health decisions should any “worst case scenarios” happen. If I end up a vegetable tomorrow (morbid, but something to consider), I’d still want my parents to be the one making the major decisions, not my boyfriend. And vice versa – I’d want his parents to be the one making the decisions for him. Two and a half years is plenty of time for some people, but it simply isn’t for us – and that’s OK. Someone told me a few months ago that once a couple is out of college, if they don’t get engaged after two years something is wrong and they’re wasting their time. Whaaaaaat? Since when is there an objective timeline on major life decisions? I don’t see anyone going around saying, “Once you’re out of college, if you don’t get a pet within a year, you’re cold and unnurturing” or “You have exactly 6 months after you graduate from college to move out of your parents’ home, or else you’re not independent and you’re a failure.” No one would tolerate that. Why do they tolerate objective standards when it comes to marriage?

For me, I will consider it the “right time” for us to get married when I know I don’t need it – when I know that I don’t need his financial support, I don’t need his amazing cooking abilities, I don’t need him managing the finances, I don’t need him to make me feel whole. Maybe this makes me utterly unromantic, but I don’t ever want to feel like I need my spouse to complete me. I want us to get married when I know the only reason I want him in my life is that – pure, unadulterated want. Not need, want. That hasn’t happened yet. I caught myself at one point desperately wanting him to move out here mostly so my rent could halve, because my finances were really tight. I decided to get a roommate instead. I wanted something to cuddle at night; I got two cats. I freaked out when I first moved out here because I didn’t know how to cook and I didn’t know what I’d do without him cooking me dinner every night; I bought every cookbook I could find with the words “Quick,” “Easy,” or “Weeknight” in the title. I’m slowly but surely working my way towards not needing him – and when I reach that point, that’s when I’ll feel comfortable marrying him.

Maybe intelligent, considerate people like Jenny don’t understand why I’m upset. But I’m not upset because people like Jenny love their partners and want to get married before I do. To that I say – Mazel Tov and L’Chaim! I’m upset because of comments like this, which I saw on someone’s Tumblr: "I got married when I was 22 too. I’m 24 now, own several businesses and let me just say that there are people my age that are still trying to figure out how to not show up to work drunk and/or hungover. I think that you and I are in the very small percentage of people under 25 that decided to skip the whole drama + blowing all your money on drinking and parties thing."

Really? Condescension much? Yes, I drink and I get hangovers – so do plenty of married people. And yes, I did admit that I don’t think I’m ready to get married. But when did we decide to equate “marriage readiness” with “overall maturity”? I’m living on my own, working towards financial independence, living on a $16,000/year budget, tracking my expenses, working my ASS off to further my postgraduate education, and caring for two cats. I know married people who lie to their spouses, can’t manage their finances, bury themselves in debt, and have no idea how to care for themselves because they went from being completely dependent on their parents to being completely dependent on their spouses. But no, you’re right, condescending married people – you have a marriage license, which TOTALLY makes you more mature and adult than me, because I’m unmarried and still in school. My mistake.

What it comes down to is that I agree with Jenny’s point of view, and I support her, and I understand her pain. And like I said earlier, I wish her all the luck in the world. This entry is not about her. But I simply wish to show the other side, and maybe explain to her that part of the anger against her might be due (at least in part) to the many other young married people who are not doing her cause any favors.

What’s a Modern Girl Want with Marriage, Anyway?

Today's entry is a bit unusual-- I didn't write it. Instead, this is courtesy of my friend Jenny, one of my favorite people in the world. Jenny is 25, and spends her days working on her PhD while trying to solve the mysteries of prostate cancer. She has a golden retriever named after Bruce Wayne, she's one of the most well-read people I know, she has an amazing assortment of heels, she's a kick-ass rock-climber, she makes delicious cupcakes, and she's a huge nerd.

She also just bought her wedding dress.

Like everything else in life, it turns out lots of people have opinions they feel the need to share with you, if you’re a 25 year old woman getting married. Are you knocked up, they say. Why not just live together, they say. Isn’t it selfish of you to get married when not everyone can?

It takes all the (limited) patience I have not to hit them with my favorite quote from The Departed: Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself. But to be a little more civil, I’ve broken it down with my friend Amanda, who’s kindly let me work out my mental twists and turns in this guest post.

1) Why get married? Because I want to. In an ideal world, this would be the only reason that mattered. I’ve dated my fiancé for a little over a year, and we’re both ready to get married. For various personal reasons, we don’t want to live together before we’re married, so we’re looking forward to not only starting our lives together but also sharing a home with our dog for the first time. I think it’s safe to say that not being married has complicated our lives far more than being married will. I am certain that I will be staying with my fiancé for the rest of our lives. And no, I do not want to wait five years, or ten years, or thirty-five years, or however long it will take until some anonymous commenter on the lives of others feels we’re
“ready.” We’re ready now. We’ve talked about it thoroughly, and we’re clear on what marriage will and will not be changing about our relationship. We’ll live in the same place. I’ll be changing my name (and no, I will not be taking opinions on that topic). Aside from that: not much. A friend recently told me that her mother’s philosophy is that if you’re not married before the wedding, you won’t be married after it. The actual ceremony and certificate won’t be changing things for us. I’m not insecure or trying to prove anything. I just want our relationship to be as official as it can be, for my own emotional reasons. In other words: Why would we NOT get married? There’s nothing holding us back. I’m in graduate school, but I don’t need to be single in order to finish. I’m 25, he’s 24. We’ve both dated plenty of people and had enough experience to know when the right person came along. Additionally, I don’t find much credibility in the theory that “it’s much more meaningful to not get married, because then every day you spend together is a choice.” Every day you spend with someone, in or out of marriage, is a choice. Disentangling yourself from any long term relationship, married or not, is going to be difficult. I, personally, find it much more meaningful to get married. Why? I’ve never married anyone before. It’s the most special thing I can think of to demonstrate how important my fiancé is to me.

2) Why get married? Because it will simplify things for my fiancé and I. I mentioned this before, but not sharing a house while we share a dog is a giant pain in the butt. More than that, having the rights that come easily with marriage but are so hard to get otherwise will be a big bonus. I don’t have to worry about not being able to see him in the hospital. He won’t have to fight my dad for our dog if I die suddenly. (My dad really loves our dog.) When we buy a house together, our loan process will be more streamlined than if we were just living together. In the event of one of our sudden illnesses, end of life decisions and similar medical consultations will take place by default with the other person. Although you can certainly file paperwork empowering your partner to make these decisions, hospitals may choose to recognize these or not. In the event of one of our deaths, our estate will revert to the other one, not to our parents. If one of us chooses to stay at home with the children, and the supporting spouse dies, the widow/er has the option to bring a wrongful death suit and get money to represent the lost earnings.

3) Why get married? Because it will make things easier for our future family. This is a short point, but a good one—our children will be default have both our names on their birth certificates. We’ll both be empowered to pick them up from school, sign off on things, etc., and while that’s not something that’s limited to married parents, it will make dealing with school administrators easier. Again, in the event of one of our deaths, custody of the children will revert to the surviving spouse, not our families.

4) Why get married? Because I believe that everyone should have the option. Not getting married as a stance on gay rights only really works if you’re a high-profile celebrity. Otherwise, you’re protesting others’ lack of civil rights, but not exercising your own. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It’s like saying all people should have the right to vote, but then not voting yourself. It’s my firm opinion, having been raised in the Bible Belt, that marriage will never be changed from the outside. It will take the dedicated work of married, straight supporters of gay rights to start to change the mainstream attitude about marriage. I also know that the kind of people who believe in the defense of marriage see not getting married as a cop out. By getting married, I am strengthening my own voice in this debate, making it carry more weight where it counts.

Plus, I love my fiancé and I can’t wait to get married to him.

Glee

Is Glee...mysoginist?

Man, I hope not. Or rather, I don't think it is-- yet-- at least, not blatantly. But I'll admit, I am worried about the direction it might go. I was thinking about the characters today, because I am loving the show for the entertainment, the small town Ohio, the music, and the whimsy... but all the female charecters are messed up. It got me angry until I realized most of the guys are messed up too... but not in the same ways, or to the same degrees as the girls.

Emma is a great person, but she's lusting after a married man, OCD for comic relief, and dating a guy she doesn't really like, purely because he's persistent. Rachel is up-tight, self-important, a little delusional, and willing to treat others unkindly if it'll help her have the spotlight. Terri is... possibly evil. She's FAKING A PREGNANCY to not lose her husband-- she's demanding, she works part time yet is pissed her husband isn't working more hours to give her more useless stuff. Tina is quiet, background, and not talented, and has been given a stutter for, again, seemingly no reason other than comedy. Mercedes is the sassy black stereotype token charecter, who is awesome in many ways, but who THREW A ROCK THROUGH A CAR WINDSHIELD. Quinn is a stereotypical cheerleader, who has some good traits but is still out to destroy the entire Glee Club in an effort to get her boyfriend's full attention... she's also president of the Chastity Club. Sue Sylvester is the villian of the show-- and deservedly so. She doesn't care about her cheerleaders, only her own self-promotion, being a "champion", and tearing others down.

Kurt is essentially a gay minstrel, but he also manages to give the football team their first win, raising their spirits and saving the day. Ken is a joke-- unattractive, down on his luck with the ladies, and only getting a girlfriend through persistence and reminding her that the community doesn't really have any better single options-- but he's a good friend, and seems like a good guy to keep coaching the joke of a football team. Artie is stuck in a wheelchair--and a nerd. THAT'S IT. He's a bit character with no flaws, though his disability is AGAIN something played for laughs. The principal is controlled by his staff, but again-- funamentally a good guy, working nights as a janitor to help keep the school afloat during the recession.

Finn and Will seem to be the main focus of the show-- They do both have their problems, true-- but Will's is that he's a bit of a wuss, and attracted to a woman who isn't his wife-- but he stays true to her, and will do anything to make life better for his family. He is a fundamentally good guy, who is very selfless, kind, caring, and willing to go the extra mile for his students, too (except for his brief interlude with Acafellas). Finn is, at first, nothing more than a dumb jock-- but he's also extremely caring, surprisingly insightful, and determined to stick by his girlfriend's side, even after he finds out she's pregnant (though they haven't had sex, he thinks its his due to a hot tub incident). Though Finn and Will both have flaws, they are good, and likable, and much less flawed than the rest of the cast.

The characters themselves are what made me think of this-- but it's there in a lot of other ways too. The extremely short skirts the cheerleaders ALWAYS wear (as opposed to just on Fridays!). The MILF jokes. The gay jokes. The cheerleader-bikini scene.the AWFUL sister of Terri, and stereotypes of marriage and child-raising.

But there is good, too. I do like that Rachel gave a speech about girls and sex. I like that abortion is treated by the guys on the show as an option for the teen girl, and that they don't question her choice to keep it. I like that the women do act independently and not subserviently to the men. Kicking out the choreographer who wanted the kids to change things about themselves. Glee has a lot of potential, and I'm really, really enjoying it. But there's also a lot of potential to seriously mess things up. I'm going to keep watching though! And... eventually... buy some of the songs off of iTunes.

(Also, psssst. Go see Jennifer's Body! Yeah, it has some super annoying Cody-speak, but its nowhere near Juno levels-- and the interactions between the girls ROCK. Don't believe me? Read the review on Io9.com)