In Nack’s “Damaged Goods,” she speaks of those who have STDs and their psychological and physical state after being diagnosed. It is, in fact, a state of feeling “damaged.” The chapter discusses the “social acceptability of blaming individuals” for their contractions of the disease. My question is why is this okay? If society was more willing to be open and reach out to individuals to inform them of dangers and be a caring hand when an STD becomes a reality for some people, we would be in a much better, healthier place. Instead of letting the ongoing contraction of STDs happen, we need to stop them in their tracks.

The article says that hardly any talk of STD is talked about in the media. That is not completely true, but it may as well be. I remember watching episodes of Degrassi, and their was an outbreak of an STD at the school. The girl who contracted felt automatic shame and guilt, as well as a sense of loneliness. If this is what we are showing to today’s population, no wonder STDs are still so prevalent! There needs to be more shows and commercials about STDs and how to prevent contraction. Media is the most influential aspect of today’s world. The possibilities of stopping the wide spread are endless with the proper utilization of newspapers, blogs, we sites, TV shows, and music. If send out the proper preventative message instead of a message of the aftermath, there is no telling how many individuals can be saved from having to go through such a confidence-altering ordeal.

The article also said less than one third of physicians screen their patients consistently for STDs. The fact that someone take it upon themselves to make a doctor’s appointment, shouldn’t they be be able to receive comprehensive care for their physician? I attended the Georgia State NAACP Convention last month, and one of the speakers worked at the CDC. She went to her doctor for a check up and as the doctor was leaving, she asked her “Are you not going to test me for STDs or at least HIV?” The doctor replied, “you do not fit the criteria.” For the physician to say “criteria,” there is something wrong in our healthcare system. Just reading about HIV in class, we all should know that there is no criteria for this disease. It hits every age group, race, and economic status. The same goes for any other STD. Of course there are some characteristics that pinpoint certain groups to be more at risk, but that is not exclusive. If we are truly trying to crackdown on this epidemic then we need o stop making assumptions about people by how they look and how much money they make. We never know someone’s story until they tell it.

Individuals feel like they have damaged themselves by contracting an STD, but if society is not trying to help through media and healthcare, society is damaging the individual.

Judith Levine, in the chapter entitled “Community: Risk, Identity, and Love in the Age of AIDS,” introduced the concepts of sexual health, identity, and love and how they are impacted by the prevalence of AIDS and varying levels of AIDS education.  A main problem according to Levine, among many others, is considering sex to not be so harmful to minors. Many people are not comfortable with saying that sex is not a dangerous thing for minors to learn about and experience. In a previous blog, I explored the fact that many children are seemingly hidden from the idea of sex so as to avoid the many problems potentially associated with it. However, this type of fear and avoidance creates two paradigms of exacerbation in regards to the deficiency of societal sexual health.

On the one hand, we have the children that are told not to have sex, whether for religious reasons or other personal reasons, who actually abide by these sheltering restrictions. As a result, it is possible that these children will gain no type  of understanding or sex education. In a society where sex is the general undertone of much of the media and popular culture, lacking sexual education creates a layer of vulnerability. Not that sex is the general basis of life, but in a way, not knowing about sex when it is so prominent places children at a particular social disadvantage. On a more serious note, if a child is to eventually engage in sexual activity, lacking sexual education likely means lacking an understanding of safe sex. So the protective barriers that were established to prevent the child from dealing with sex could in turn put them at a greater risk if they were to break these rules later down the line.

In somewhat of the same fashion, there are then the children that see the rules regarding sex, know the rules, and chose to break the rules. This is one of the outlined risks of college students that decide to experiment and take more risks once they arrive to college and experience independence for the first time. In the act of exploration and rebellion, these individuals likely take risks that would otherwise have been avoided had they not had the same thirst for sex.

This may seem like a very radical approach. The point is not to say that all adolescents that are withheld from sex and sexual education will eventually get pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease or infection. Rather the idea is that educating young adolescents about sex will likely lead to higher usage rates of protection and more effective decision making skills in regards to sex. Afterall, people tend to make healthier decisions regarding pleasure when the risks are known as well.

“But what about AIDS?” Levine notes this as being the main question asked once the notion of sex not being harmful to minors is introduced. Yet is this not even more reason to educate children and adolescents about sex. With the prevalence of AIDS and other STDs remaining steady if not increasing, the answer is seemingly not to withhold information, but to encourage understanding. Education is not synonymous with intercourse, but potentially is reason for better decision-making. Why prevent young individuals from being aware?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/25/when-gods-will-rape-and-pregnancy-collide/?iref=allsearch

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/us/ex-gay-men-fight-view-that-homosexuality-cant-be-changed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

In the second paragraph the author gets into the heat of the argument. The pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. I did feel as though initially she came off as bias. At the end of the paragraph she while describing the pro-life philosophy she expressed it “sadly”. It sticks out so much because it is literally the last word on the page too…lol.

But I am on her side, so I cannot really complain. Pro choice has always been the softer, and for me easier to like, of the two sides, and they support baby killing. I do not say this to be shocking, I know it may seem that way. However, as a pious man it does not matter. All other variables excluded, if left un-aborted a baby would be born, have a life, and die like the rest of us. By aborting that chance at life is taken. It in my humble opinion is baby killing. I’m am also a scientist, and I recognize that as long as a baby is aborted early enough, it is not alive yet, thus no actually killing of baby’s has occurred. I do not think the author dives deep into the topic of the life of the baby. Probably because that is a whole different argument

Another reason I enjoyed this paper was because in Evolutionary Biology the other day I brought up baby killing when we were studying a paper about beehives. The queen kills all the babies that aren’t her own in order to maintain social fear control over the hive’s female-clone slaves (asexually reproduced worker bees). I promise I am not making this up. Some close relative may survive.  It’s her source of power and why she rules. I think some pro-life advocates, truly and genuinely fear giving up that type of power to a woman. Not a literal, she is a queen and we are slaves, but a biological and evolutionary power source that, lets face it, would be the ultimate ace up the sleeve in any relationship. The one who controls the production of offspring, all other things being equal, controls the relationship. But unfortunately in our society all things are not equal. I love women so I’m 100% with giving y’all more power. Because in the end I will never ‘fear’ you, I’ll ‘Love ’ you.

The rest of the paper deals with people’s opinions about what is acceptable and the moral battle. That’s exactly what it is, a battle. Life is a battle. L/G/B/T rights…a battle. Minority rights….a battle. Woman’s suffrage….a battle. The way I relate this to the archives, is that in all the articles I’ve seen in Emory’s past, at least between the years we were assigned, the battle is a slow grinding one, and the culture of Emory is becoming more accepting by the years. Accepting towards sexual choice, skin, race, and religion. And in that diverse community were we are accepting and open to empower woman, I think makes us better and stronger. It isn’t a battle that has been won, each of these groups fights the same war on different turf, but the progress we all make is towards peace, equality, and happiness.

The debates on abortion have been around for a long time in many places, but still nobody can easily support one side without just ignoring the other side’s argument. The biology of human reproduction and the importance of the both values, ‘life’ and ‘right’, make the unwantedly pregnant mothers to pick one side by compromising the other. Because the possible implications of choosing one value over the other can mean either ‘murder’ or ‘forced birth’, it seems almost impossible to make a perfect decision. In theory, since, no one has the right to take away lives of human beings, we must not allow any abortion. However, since we are not living in utopia, but reality, we have many kinds of situations where women can end up having unwanted or even dangerous pregnancy that could be aborted to not risk the life of the mother, as seen in the essay by Suzanne Edwards (1). For these reasons, to me, the best way seems to be carefully examining each ‘unwanted pregnancy’, case by case, to decide whether abortion can be legally allowed.

 Perhaps what we should more worry about is how to prevent such situations. Preventing people from putting themselves in this serious dilemma is probably the best we can do. Increasing the level of educations about contraception and family planning and the punishment for rapists, and promoting people for regular gynecologist visits (even though it can sound ridiculous) could be some of the possible ways of avoiding the ‘bad situation’.

I believe in what is called ‘cultural materialism’ which states that every cultural ritual has or is related to some kind of biological function. Many cultures around the world had been attaching much importance to maintaining virginity before marriage. Maybe one of the major reasons behind this common taboo was to prevent unwanted pregnancy when we did not have condoms, plan B’s, and abortion.

(1) What “health of the mother” means by Suzanne Edwards

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/what_health_of_the_mother_means/

In the article “Condom Use with a Casual Partner,” it discussed the successful use of condoms in different situations. Alcohol use coupled with those who are risk takers vowed many who did not use a condom when intoxicated. However, the data was not completely consistent. Something that may not be able to be completely measured in a study are people’s thoughts going into a situation. Many college students prepare to get drunk and have a “hookup.” This way, they do not have to be completely responsible for their actions. Hidden desires that they dare not share with their friends can come to life in an intoxicated state with not as many repercussions.

Many male and female students will start the story of their escapades with “I was wasted” or “I was totally drunk” in order to have a precursor so their friends and peers will not judge them as harshly. This is common practice in a college setting. Because although in college students are known to party hard, there is still an image of dignity that must be somewhat upheld.

When it comes to the use of condoms, this plays into the culture. Students will get drunk to have a reason for their actions, but will have safe sex because in many situations, the drunken activities were premeditated. Of course this is not the case for all, but it occurs more than you might think.

Sometimes stats and percentages do not tell the whole story, and I believe this is one of those instances.

With laws and political divisions becoming increasingly extreme, the role of contraceptive use in sexual encounters is precarious. School education programs and public health policy groups work to encourage contraceptive use in all sexual encounters. Alarmingly these people aren’t just fighting an uphill battle against ignorance, but also have to deal with special interest groups that are not only discouraging safer sex education programs, but also fighting for the instigation of pro-life policies – policies that could succeed in the eventual elimination of certain contraceptive options.

There have been recent debates in the news regarding the future of abortion in some states. Often this issue comes up in coordination with election years and this year seems no different. We have seen debates on this hot topic arise cyclically and fade after one side or the other achieves some small victory that usually leaves the issue seemingly unchanged.  As Wendy Simonds points out in her piece (Simonds p 427), this debate is a “rhetorical battle” consisting of word manipulation and moral mud slinging. In what seems to be an increasingly extreme battle of the pro-life vs. pro-choice contingencies, choosing sides has suddenly become an even more reflective issue. The fight for the right to abort could have huge consequences in states like Mississippi where a new abortion bill is on the floor. The phrasing of this bill that would outlaw abortion could also be a slippery downhill slide to the elimination of other birth control methods including the birth control pill and intrauterine devices (IUDs). By defining the beginning of life as the moment sperm meets egg, this law would basically instigate the right of every potential fetus to be born, outlawing the methods that prevent implantation in the uterus (Papas). Other states, including Oklahoma and Virginia have passed some forms of this type of law and additionally have instigated the use of invasive transvaginal ultrasounds in women who seek out an abortion (Favate)

As we are all very aware, there are two sides to this issue and two predominant parties in our government. As the issue grows, the battles are becoming bigger and the effects of success by the pro-life, anti-abortion side of this argument have actually become noticeable. Before it was always the wording of some little document that some people buzzed over, but the general public ignored. Now the public, or at least half of it, should finally be paying attention. In my opinion we have arrived to a point of regression and women are the ones whose rights are being taken away.

The motivation behind these changes is not just the simple moral code of our leaders. They are the consequence of the fight to maintain, or in some places regain, the hetero-normative lifestyle. This country is predominantly lead by straight, married, well educated men who have devoted their lives in part to maintaining their squeaky clean exterior. These men are trying to maintain the expected life of a successful American man. What will happen to them however, if the number of non-married couples who are expecting a child increases? What will happen to them if more people decide to join the sexually liberated?

Simonds, Wendy. “From Contraception to Abortion: A Moral Continuum”

Pappas, Stephanie. “Mississippi’s ‘Personhood’ Law Could Outlaw Birth Control” Live Science. November 7, 2011 http://www.livescience.com/16917-mississippi-personhood-birth-control.html

Favate, Sam. “Virginia House Passes Bills Restricting Abortion” The Wall Street Journal. February 16, 2012 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/02/16/virginia-house-passes-bills-restricting-abortion/

In Moore and Davidson’s “Communicating with New Sex Partners”, they explain how risk-taking sexual practices is more related to self efficacy than knowledge. They stated, “High Self efficacy is associated with both the intention to discuss STD prevention and reported discussion of past sex partner.” I thought it was interesting how they compared the three different groups of college females in regards to asking about their sexual partners about sexual history. They categorized them into three groups: rarely, sometimes, and almost always. Moore and Davidson’ then brought in a nurturing aspect to each group, further distinguishing them from one another. The AA (almost always) is known to have had more sexually related conversations with their mother figures than the R (rarely) and S (sometimes). This is compelling in that something so minuscule when growing up can make the biggest differences later on in life.

After reading this article, I feel like that when it comes to asking about sexual history, that responsibility has mostly fallen upon women in modern day American society. I heard this quote when I was younger, “What would you rather have, a key that can open any door, or a door that can be opened with any key?”. This made me think of how society says it is ok for a man to sleep with numerous women; however, when a woman sleeps with numerous men, she is frowned upon. Knowing this information, I think men should be equally as responsible for asking the question. Sure, a women has more on the line besides contracting STDs, but a man still has enough on the line to bring up the question.

STD’s can be asymptomatic depending on the strain, and gender infected. for example, A man can carry Chlamydia while being asymptomatic/clueless, and pass it on to a woman – possibly making her infertile. It makes me angry how a simple test or question can prevent something terrible like the example I gave from happening. Men do have more than enough on the line to bring up the question, but I am positive most don’t ask. I think it is odd how women have been thrown this responsibility of being the “careful ones”, when it is obvious that men should be equally as responsible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8606980

Safe Sex is Great Sex

Talks with S

 10/26/2012

The discussion that I wish to delve in today’s blog is the relationship of safe sex practices among men and women with that of variables such as family background, culture, personality traits, self-efficacy, and consumption of alcohol and other mind-altering drugs. The central question that I plan to answer is why college students may partake in risky sexual behavior knowing that it can have adverse negative affects. Some college students may indulge in sexual acts with other known or unknown persons without prior knowledge of their sexual partners “sexual script” or sexual history, and at the contingency of getting pregnant or contracting a Sexually Transmitted Disease.

All persons that have entered their lives phase characterized as the “adulthood” phase, are said to have a “sexual script” (Davidson Sr. and Moore 171). Even with the widespread awareness that all adults (exceptions: such as a-sexuals and the like) do in fact have a “sexual script”, most individuals (referring to college students in this discussion) fail to ask their partners about their sexual history. Thus, they may engage in sexual acts with a known or unknown person without knowing if they have good “sexual health” or in other words do not have a STD. This risky behavior of engaging in sex without knowledge of their partner’s sexual script is further elevated by several factors such as “[a woman’s] decreased age at first sexual intercourse, low sexual self-esteem [of an individual], 2 or more sexual partners within the past year, and consumption of alcohol beverages prior to sexual intercourse” (Davidson Sr. and Moore 173). Other reasons may include self- efficacy (confidence or morals associated with it), being caught up in the moment and “indestructible” or the feeling of being above the ability to contract any harmful counter-reaction.

Even though nobody wishes to contract an STD or be stuck with an unintended pregnancy, many individuals do not use a contraceptive while engaging in sexual intercourse. If one does not know their sex partners “sexual script”, he or she should be vary and should always use protection. One may fail to ask their sex partner about their “sexual script” due to the “the lack of an acceptable cultural language with which to negotiate disclosure of sexual histories” (Davidson Sr. and Moore 172). Until the early 1970’s the topic of sex was one that was not deemed as something concrete to be discussed openly. Such discussions were almost taboo. An example of this taboo can in some ways be witnessed in the Emory Archives at the Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library (MARBL) located on the 10^th floor of Emory University’s Woodruff Library. While going through Emory’s collection of yearly reports (Campus Report) and newspaper journals (Emory Wheel) from 1920 to present, I have noticed these differences. We can see no mention of the term “sex” in any context what so ever in 1920s till 1950’s. Then gradually terms such as “sex education”, “condom”, “ AIDS” etc. surfaced in conjunction to students practicing safe sex. Most individuals did not even receive sex education in high school or at the college level. Although this is noticeable even today in some cultures, its taboo as an acceptable societal topic was harsher back then. Even though we consider ourselves to be living in a modern society today, most individuals are still anxious to bring up this topic of past sexual encounters with their current sex partners. Then again, when is the right time to bring up this topic? Should one bring up this topic in the middle of sexual intercourse? Should one have this discussion on the first date itself? Unfortunately, there isn’t one “correct” time. This is variable and subject to the circumstance of each individual, however, a necessity.

It has been proven that college men have more lifetime sex partners than most college women (Davidson Sr. and Moore 171). This implies that women are at a greater risk of contracting a Sexually Transmitted Disease in addition to being at the constant risk of an unintended pregnancy. Women still shy away from asking their sex partners about their previous sexual histories. Davidson Sr. and Moore in Communicating with New Sex Partners, talk about society condemning women who engage in casual sexual intercourse, and society impairing the ability of women to effectively engage in rational decision making about involvement in sexual activity. Then it is only natural that a woman’s fear may overshadow her desire to know about her partner’s sexual history. It is often believed that having sex without a condom is a gesture of faith and trust in a relationship. A woman may be considered to distrust her male sex counterpart if she asks him to wear a condom. This further adds to her distress.

The reason why one may be fearful to ask another persons sexual script is apparent through various reasons mentioned above, yet I consider all the reasons to be inexcusable. I use the term “inexcusable” as I believe it to be wrong to engage in an activity that one knows can have adverse negative consequences. If there is a better way of performing a task or activity, we should adopt that method. If using a contraceptive such as a condom can possibly nullify those negative consequences, then wearing one is advisable.

Even though the knowledge to use a contraceptive for intercourse is out there, most individuals do not follow it. School children may not have access to a condom, may not have the means (money, transport etc.) to buy one or some may not even know that they should buy one or where to get one. Some individuals, particularly college students, may feel that sex is not enjoyable with a condom. Some sex partners may feel that a birth control pill is sufficient to prevent pregnancy and they may not worry about STD’s, and some may get caught up in the moment and forget to put one on. Another group of individuals could include those who may feel that wearing a condom is against gods will or against their religion as this is a way of playing against natures “side-effect” of engaging in sexual intercourse.

Statistics show us that “approximately 19 million STD infections are diagnosed annually in the United States, and almost half occur among individuals between the ages of 15 and 24” (Abbey, Buck and Parkhill and Saenz 469). This data further strengthens my point that using a contraceptive such as a condom is necessary, and perhaps should be highly encouraged or even mandated by the government; although its progress can never be monitored. Sex education should be imparted to all children in middle school, and should include strong emphasis on the use of condoms without shying away from the idea of truthfully telling their partners that, “Using a Condom is Always a Good Idea.” Abbey, Buck and Parkhill and Saenz in Condom Use with a Casual Partner talk about “the importance of feeling confident about [their] partner’s acceptance of condoms and the ability to be assertive about expressing the desire to use a condom” (470).

If one previously knows their sexual partner or not, or if it is their first sexual intercourse or not, using a contraceptive to protect oneself from STD’s is always advisable. One should take it as a necessary step in the process of engaging in sexual intercourse. Knowing their partners sexual history is an added and much- needed bonus here. One should not shy away from this question and should ask their sexual partners about their previous sexual activities. Ones safety is of utmost importance and its priority shouldn’t be negated. Furthermore, this “sexual script” is said to be “a process that dynamic, continuing to evolve throughout life in relationship with others” (Davidson Sr. and Moore 171). Therefore, it is important that we are aware of our sexual script, and are open about it with our sex partners. Davidson Sr. and Moore state,

“A heightened awareness of your own sexual script can enhance your role as director in the drama of your own development trajectory in life” (171).

One’s “sexual health” is an infusion of good physical health, stable emotions and knowledge of the means to have safe sex. This infusion can then lead to healthier sexual satisfaction, as safe sex is great sex!

Citations:

Abbey, Antonia. Buck, Philip O. Parkhill, Michele R. Saenz, Christopher. “Condom Use with a Casual Partner: What Distinguishes College Students’ Use When Intoxicated?”

Davidson Sr., J. Kenneth. Moore, Nelwyn B. “Communicating with New Sex Partners: College Women and Questions That Make a Difference”

DeLamater, John D. and Friedrich, William N. “Human Sexual Development”