A Hole in Our Rubber Soul

The simple mechanics of pregnancy prevention are straightforward and, luckily, cheap.  Nevertheless, though condoms are plentiful, easy to use, and ribbed, scented, and flavored, about fifty percent of American pregnancies are still unintended.  This is not, as many religious sources would have you believe, due to the incredibly high rate of condom failure.  Not surprisingly, it's the result of layer upon layer of prejudice and misinformation.  Several centuries after its invention, the rate of condom failure is still much lower than the rate of condom ignorance.

It begins with the way that the media depicts condoms, and the way that it presents sex.  Sex is everywhere on TV, including on the Disney Channel and the Food Network.  Yet condom commercials are much harder to come by. You certainly haven't seen them on ABC, home of the wholesome "Gray's Anatomy" an "Desperate Housewives," which refuses to air any condom advertising.  Other networks may allow condom advertisements, but most have restrictions on the types of commercials that can be shown, and the times that they can run.  Perhaps most egregiously, Fox and CBS mandate that any condom advertising shown on the network "must not focus on pregnancy prevention."  In the same way, birth control pills can be advertised, as long as they are marketed as primarily as treatments for acne and PMS.  Interestingly, these same restrictions do not apply to commercials for products such as Viagra or Cialis.

Condom Ad Rejected by Fox

I am certainly not belittling the importance of HIV prevention. Yet mandating that condom commercials focus only on disease prevention, and not on unwanted pregnancy, seems a bizarre dichotomy to draw.  In fact, prior to the emergence of the AIDS crisis, condom advertisements were not allowed on TV at all.  Focusing on HIV risk makes sex dirty and dangerous, while advocating pregnancy prevention would imply that fun, non-procreative sex is something to be celebrated.  I guess that Fox executives can congratulate themselves on having made pregnancy prevention an obscenity, and one even greater than sex itself.

The mere logistics of purchasing condoms is further testament to the disconnect between our views of contraception and our appetite for sex.  In most drugstores, condoms are segregated to a special shelf, usually right below the pharmacist's watchful eyes; in other cases, they are locked up, and store patrons must have an employee assist them in their embarrassing purchase.  It is awkward enough to remove condoms from their glass prison when you're in your twenties or thirties; I can only imagine how difficult it is for a 16-year-old to ask someone to unlock a condom case.  Unfortunately, condoms have been locked up primarily because they are so often shoplifted, likely by those too embarrassed to bring them to checkout.  Then the condoms are locked up, the awkwardness increases, and an infinite cycle begins.

http://thecurvature.com/2009/02/12/cvs-limits-condom-access-for-some/

These magical locked cases can only be opened with a wedding ring.

To better promote safe sex amongst teenagers, progressives such as Joycelyn Elders have advocated dispensing condoms in high schools.  Massachusetts has implemented this practice in many of its schools, with great significant reduction in teen pregnancy rates.  Yet I doubt that other states will take the cue from Massachusetts any time soon, because I'm just not that naive.  Indeed, the "War on Condoms" is being waged full-force in high schools, as well as in our drugstores an on our airwaves.

http://www.zazzle.com/if_used_correctlynot_100_effective_condoms_e_tshirt-235300270078506145

Seriously, ya'll!  If used correctly, not 100% effective condoms everytime!  Wait, what?

In the abstinence-only programs served up to most of America's teenagers, condoms are only mentioned as being so ineffective that they are not worthy of discussion.  This is the direct of the widespread fear that frank discussion of condoms will incite premature sexual activity, in the same way that not teaching teens about condoms has successfully kept sex a complete secret.  For this reason, teenagers educated in abstinence-only programs are far less likely than their more savvy counterparts to use condoms when they inevitably become sexually active.  I feel like it's understood that essentially all products have some non-zero failure rate, yet condoms, with their 98% rate of effectiveness, are held to the highest standard and get by far the worst rap.  Notice how we never see "Chemotherapy:  Not 100% Effective" or "Prayer:  Not 100% Effective"?

Amid the shame, secrecy, and slander surrounding condoms, thousands of lives are still being ruined each year by unintended pregnancies in tragic and needless accidents that could have been prevented by a 25-cent piece of latex.  I expect that someday I'll get around to making the choice to have a child, and when I do, I will love that child enough not to value an arbitrary standard of morality over his or her safety.  My kid will get a big gift-wrapped box of condoms on its 16th birthday.

Embarrassing Moments in History: Joycelyn Elders

I firmly believe that the first step in bettering life both at home and abroad would be drastically lowering the rate of unintended and unwanted pregnancies, while simultaneously cultivating healthier attitudes about sex.  Thus, I blog.  Yet my views really aren't all that radical.  They sound basic and intuitive enough, and completely in line with Whole Foods-shopping, NPR-listening liberal ideas.  Yet in practice, in the real world, we are still far away from realizing these standards.  To emphasize this point, I'd like to tell a sad story from (recent) history.

In 1993, Joycelyn Elders, pediatric endocrinologist and expert in childhood sexual development, was appointed the 15th Surgeon General by Bill Clinton.  At that time, the teen pregnancy rate was 11.1%, HIV rates were on the rise, and accordingly, the nation turned to the new Surgeon General for insight and solutions. From the start, however, she was unpopular with conservatives and the Democratic Clinton administration alike, and incited controversy through her support of abortion rights, marijuana legalization, and distribution of contraception in high schools.    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders

Unfortunately, Dr. Elders offended polite sensibilities one too many times when she suggested in December 1994 that masturbation be taught to students as a form of "safe sex," in order to prevent HIV infections and teenage pregnancies.  Her exact words on this topic were "I think that it is a part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught."  These comments fomented considerable  following day, she was sacked by Clinton, who stated that this most recent indecency was "the last straw."  This was approximately one year before he stuck a cigar into an intern's vagina.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/monica-lewinksys-drudge-anniversary_b28876

Claiming that "masturbation is bad" depends on what the definition of "is" is.

In 1996, following Dr. Elders' removal from office, the U.S. famously instituted a nation-wide program of "abstinence-only education," which invested $1.5 billion of taxpayer dollars in attempting to terrify American students out of having premarital sex.  Years later, the rate of pre-marital sex remains steady at 95%, teen pregnancy rates are back on the rise, and millions of American students are still being told not to touch themselves or anyone else in a "special way."

http://spendmoneyonline.net/2008/02/01/anti-masturbation-device-french-c1880/

Anti-masturbation device.  Sin-proof, Clinton-proof.

I myself was one of these students who came up in an abstinence-only sex education curriculum in Georgia.  The majority of our education consisted of horrifying images of STDs, greatly exaggerated statistics about the inefficiency of condoms, and exhortations to "resist peer pressure" - since, naturally, teenagers only want to have sex when pressured to do so by other teenagers, not because it actually feels good or is encouraged by millions of years of evolution.  Masturbation came up exactly once in the discussion, surrounded with plenty of Georgia-variety hellfire and brimstone.  

Given that realization of the futility of such programs has led to some budget cuts, however, I wondered if the Richmond County Board of Education had changed its stance on abstinence-only education.  Having found no relevant information online, I called the Richmond County School Board's office last week to inquire about its current sex education policies.  After the nice lady on the phone offered to transfer me, I was promptly disconnected.  Now, given my familiarity with this particular office, I attribute this carelessness to general ineptitude rather than to some kind of grand conspiracy.  Nevertheless, further inquiry revealed that Georgia is one of 27 states still required by law to focus primarily on abstinence in sex education, and that its abstinence-only-until-marriage programs received almost $10 million in 2009.

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a25578437/featured_debate_teen_pregnancy_and_religion

Georgia ranks 13th in the nation for teenage pregnancy.  Ooops.

In the nation with the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world, we inexplicably still pretend that abstinence until marriage is somehow a realistic goal.  Abstinence without masturbation, however, is about as realistic as trying to get America to actually follow the guidelines of the Food Pyramid.  While the importance of contraceptives needs to be emphasized over and over again ad infinitum to middle and high schoolers, the safest place for teenage semen is still in a sock, and the most effective and comprehensive sex education programs should acknowledge that.  Alas, Joycelyn Elders' suggestion was, and still is, far ahead of its time.  This is because for much of the nation, the priority remains not decreasing the overall rate of teenage birth, but promoting some kind of unattainable, Old Testament standard of sexual purity of which even Sarah Palin's children fall short.  We can only hope that a few more decades of these results may change our attitudes.  

Until then, Joycelyn, our hats (and our panties) go off to you!