What We Can Learn From Teen Dating Violence

April 18, 2012 / Alessia / 3 Comments

Talk about burying the lead…

A recent survey commissioned by the Family Violence Prevention Fund and Liz Claiborne Inc. and conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited (TRU) set out to explore “how the economy has impacted dating relationships among young adolescents and to determine the level and impact of parental engagement in the issue of teen dating violence and abuse.” The survey, Impact of the Economy and Parent/Teen Dialogue on Dating Relationships and Abuse, titled their press release New Research Finds Possible Link between Troubled Economy and High Levels of Teen Dating Abuse, despite the fact that the findings were about far more then the “media popular” word “economy.”

A new survey reports today that teens nationwide are experiencing significant levels of dating abuse, and the economy appears to be making it worse. Nearly half of teens (44 percent) whose families have experienced economic problems in the past year report that they have witnessed their parents abusing each other.
Sixty-seven percent of these same teens experienced some form of violence or abuse in their own relationships and report a 50 percent higher rate of dating abuse compared to teens who have not witnessed domestic violence between their parents.

While it’s not exactly news that domestic violence increases with stressers such as economic troubles, failure to focus on the horror of parents abusing each other (and in such a high percentage as 44%) is a bit disturbing on several levels — even if the survey was about teens. Put a pin in this; we’ll be back to it in a few minutes.

The survey findings continue:

For the first time, data also shows that despite the fact that the majority of parents say they are comfortable talking about these issues, parents are not effective in educating their children about the dangers of dating abuse. 74 percent of sons and 66 percent of daughters say they have not had a conversation about dating abuse this past year. Even more troubling, the majority of teens who are in abusive relationships report they have not talked to their parents. Of the fewer than one-third who do confide in their parents, 78 percent report staying in these abusive relationships despite their parents’ advice.

Note the glaring statistic: 74 percent of sons and 66 percent of daughters say they have not had a conversation about dating abuse this past year. Evidence that we are not talking to our sons about violence, which leaves them vulnerable to abuse, but also perpetuates the BS that it’s a “women’s issue” and not the responsibility of men.

Arg!

But now, in the “Hurray! We’re doing something!” part, something else disturbs me…

“This poll shows a disconnect between what some parents think is happening with their teenage children and what teens say they are experiencing,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President (FVPF), Esta Soler. “Not enough parents recognize behaviors that may be warning signs of abuse. It concerns us that about one-third of parents don’t recognize that isolation from family, being kept away from family by a dating partner, and isolation from friends can be danger signs. We are making progress educating parents, but we’d like those numbers to be higher. So we have more work to do. Dating violence is a huge problem in this country, and we need parents, schools and everyone to take responsibility for helping keep teens safe. Macy’s is leading the way with its support for the RESPECT! campaign, which offers the tools parents need to define and promote healthy relationships, and intervene effectively if abuse begins.”

Remember when I asked you to put a pin in that part about domestic violence in the teens’ homes? Well, if 44% of the teen homes surveyed had “parents abusing each other,” then the following can easily be concluded:

Both the parent being abused and their partner (spouse, co-parent, etc.), would be under the influence of domestic violence. They might see the abuse mirrored in their child’s dating relationship, but either A), as the abuser, think it’s OK, B), as the one abused, have no power or influence to intervene (they even may have tried to intervene but were punished for it), &/or C), as the one abused, they too are isolated — and discredited.

Similarly, the teens themselves would be stuck in belief that it’s OK, be dismissive of parents’ comments because they themselves are “living it,” &/or feel powerless in general because of living with domestic violence in the household.

I’m not saying that teen dating violence should not be of any concern, but the data in this survey reveals that the prevalence of domestic violence, especially when combined with gender-skewed safety education, means that such violence prevails because we are too busy providing reasons such as “it’s a tough economy” that “explain” violence rather than flat out condemn it.

The Sweet Smell of Sex

April 30, 2011 / Alessia / 1 Comment

Over at Pretty Dumb Things, Chelsea Girl wondered about her committed relationship and why they were having less than stellar sex:

And I have tried, I have tried and I have tried to get Donny to hear my complaints. I have mentioned how he used to tie me up and wasn’t that fun, wouldn’t he like a go at the old ropes again? I have said, wow, I really liked it when you dripped me with candle wax, whaddaya think, got a match? I have said, you know, I really enjoy being spanked. How about spanking me? I have insinuated, intimated, directly addressed, queried, said outright and asked point blank. I have done so for almost a year, and for almost a year, I have seen our sex life get more and more firmly entrenched in what I can only term in absolute honesty as a rut.

Saturday, I lost patience, and I kinda sorta, no really, let Donny have it. I told him that I was dissatisfied. I reminded him of the sex we used to have–long, languorous and perverse loops of time and experience where we held each other suspended in passion and occasional pain. I told him that I realized that this kind of sex wasn’t an everyday option, but given how rarely we do fuck, that I needed it to happen more frequently than it had.

I told him, in short, that we were in a rut. I told him that I wanted out. Whether I meant the rut or the relationship was intentionally ambiguous.

“Well,” he said, a stricken look on his face, “when I met you and we did all that stuff, I wasn’t in love with you. But now I love you, and…” his voice trailed off.

Which leaves me to wonder. What has love got to do with it? Why now that my boyfriend is in love with me and I with him, now that he takes care of me, now that he’s committed to me, why with all of that, does the nasty need to go away? Why can’t he fuck me like the little whore I used to be (and still am in my mind)? Why must I sacrifice the wild ecstatic pleasures to the domestic delights? Why do I have to lose my lover to gain a partner?

Why can’t I have it all?

…I hope fervently that we can relearn how to be beasty in the bedroom and keep the commitment. It’s a lot less easy than I thought it would be.

Yes, Chelsea, it is. It will be. Relationships take work and sometimes that work along with the daily grind make sex between committed partners seem more like sex with a friend or a sibling even. (Yeesh!)

That spark, that je ne sais quoi, that makes folks tumble into bed together is dampened if not completely put out by the wet blanked of security, familiarity and comfort which we all prize in our relationships — well, at least until it smothers the sex, then we wonder if it’s all it’s cracked-up to be.

Without trying to play counselor to Chelsea and Donny — the former I’ve ‘conversed with’ a few times, the later I don’t know from Adam — I do have general advice for this general situation of a general sexual rut. And it’s really simple: Hit him in the nose.

No, not literally. Use his sense of smell to get him in the mood.

Memories, complete with all associated emotions such as arousal and lust, can be prompted by smell. I’m serious — it works for both men and women. And I’m not talking about pheromones or other odors you either aren’t aware of or cannot control; I’m talking about recreating the fragrances you both fell in lust with. Your perfume, his cologne, candles, incense — even the smell of a smoky bar can literally be that magic “something in the air” which you’ve been missing.

Smells are strongly linked to memory, so simply spritzing on that signature perfume you always used to wear when you were dating or lighting candles in the same scents you first made-out to can take your partner back to those emotional feelings. I personally know a couple whose sex life soared to re-newed heights when she took a part-time job back in waitressing. Every night that she returned home smelling of fried foods it took him back to when he used to pick her up after work late at night… They were young then, and their night was just beginning…

Who knew fried foods could be so sexy?

Well, in truth, it’s not the fried foods but the smell connected to emotion. One whiff and he was transported back in time… A time when he couldn’t wait to get a chance to feel her up under her polyester uniform and prayed for more. His drive returned with the memories (and she made a bit of extra spending cash to buy herself new trinkets which made her feel sexy too). Win-win!

So dig out that bottle of perfume or cologne you once put on for every date night — I don’t care if those fragrances are so last year (or even so 1980’s), just put them on again. (Unless these bottles themselves have turned bad, then head to the store and buy a new bottle. If they stopped making that fragrance, ask the lady at the perfume counter to help you find the latest scent which is the closest match.) Ditto on the candles — burn Christmas candles all year long if you were getting hot and sweaty during holiday time.

If you don’t believe me, then believe Dr. Alan Hirsch founder of the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago. Dr. Hirsch has studied olfactory-evoked nostalgia (sometimes called the Proust Effect) and he says, “The quickest way to affect somebody’s moods or behavior, quicker than with any other sensory modality, is with smell.”

This is because of how smell and memory are linked — in fact, we must first remember a smell before identifying it. This means that not only is odor linked to experiences, that smell evokes memories, but that smell is better at this memory cue effect than the other senses. So if you want him to remember a special time, a special feeling — that feeling — think less about how you look or what you are wearing, but about what you both are smelling.

This is entirely unconscious, so you need not get your partner to agree — or even tell them about your sweet-smelling seduction plans!

Of course, some scent memories may have changed over time. For example, some women can no longer wear their old favorite fragrance because that smell is linked to the memory, and nausea, of morning sickness. But this too is good news — it’s proof that your smell-memory connection can be relearned. If your partner isn’t keen on smelling like fried foods every night just to get it on, start spritzing on a new perfume, lighting candles, or even get a new car fragrance tree on the rear-view if you can’t wait to get home to do it — whatever new scent you add to the hot steamy sex will quickly become the new sexy smell memory.

If all else fails, serve him pumpkin pie while burning a lavender candle. Or burn a pumpkin candle and a lavender candle at the same time. Because Dr. Hirsch found the smell of pumpkin pie, when mixed with the smell of lavender, stimulated male sexual arousal more than any other aroma tested. It increased penile blood flow in test subjects by 40 per cent, 13 times more than designer perfume.

And keep those candles burning until you are done and both (I hope!) blissfully basking in the afterglow, because after sex there’s an increase in the production of the hormone makes the brain to form new neurons in the olfactory center. Which not only improves sense of smell, but, again, helps link the smell to the sense of satisfaction.

Make-Up Works: Exaggerated Beauty Gets Noticed

November 13, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

Also in the December issue of Psychology Today, Mina Shaghaghi reports on the findings of a series of studies by Richard Russell of Gettysburg College which explains the “allure of dramatic eye makeup and va-va-voom red lips on women has biological roots.”

It seems that what glamor girls do (whether they know it or not) is increase the contrast of the eyes and lips against the rest of the face — and such contrasts communicate femininity and attractiveness.

These studies indicate that it’s not so much the colors of your cosmetics, but that they darken the eyes and lips, making the rest of your complexion pale even more by comparison.

For more on this, visit Richard Russell’s Research page (scroll to the bottom for the Artificial Enhancement of Facial Signals studies).

Can He Last Three Minutes?

November 11, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

In the November issue of O (and that stands for Oprah, not Orgasm or Overstock.com), Dr. Helen Fisher discusses love at first site — or something rather close in her What’s Love Got To Do With It? column, “The First Three Minutes.”

Retro Tina-Turner-tune-title aside, the article itself is rather fascinating as it says that the first three minutes are essential for romance — and yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as love at first sight.

Fisher says — and my decades of dating experience agrees — that it takes less than one second to decide whether you find someone physically attractive. Then, if the dude passes, women listen. But what they are listening for may surprise you…

Women generally regard rapid talkers talkers as more educated and men with full, deep voices as better-looking than they are.

What the men say is also important — but, it seems, that even if we don’t really love the sound of our own voices, we are hoping to hear ourselves:

We like people who use the same words we use.

We are also drawn to those who have a similar degree of intelligence, share our religious and social values, and come from the same economic background — and we quickly determine these attributes from a man’s words (not to mention how he dresses and wears his hair, whether he’s carrying a briefcase of a soccer ball, and if he’s sporting a gold watch or a tattoo).

If all this sounds a bit too easy to be true, Fisher notes a survey by Ben-Gurion University’s Dr. Ayala Malach-Pines which says that maybe it is: Only 11% of her survey respondents said their long-term relationships began with love at first site.

So then Fisher points out that psychologists say that the the more you interact with a person you like (even slightly), the more you will come to find them good-looking, smart — and the all important “similar to you.”

Unless, that is, you discover a real deal-breaker.

But then that’s what dating is for, right? To spot the bad stuff before you have the mortgage, the kids, and a dog you both want.

Click the pic to read the entire scanned article:

Why Asking That Trite Astrology Question May Not Be So Dumb

November 3, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

In the December issue of Psychology Today (fast becoming my favorite magazine), Matthew Hutson shares unusual and revealing information about birth months and personality, saying, “Astrology may be bullocks, but your month of birth still guides your fate.”

No one is sure why birth dates affect mental traits, but environmental effects during the third trimester (weather, amount of daylight, seasonal variation in the mother’s diet) are often blamed. Here’s what you birth date might portend.

And if such things as “people born in summer are more outgoing, curious, and imaginative, and less neurotic” are true, knowing the birth date of your mate — or potential mate — might give you some clues too. Click to enlarge and read the scan.

Alcohol Consumption, Alcohol Policies, and Risky Sexual Behaviors

September 30, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

According to work by Sara Markowitz, Robert Kaestner, and Michael Grossman, “There appears to be no evidence suggesting a causal role of alcohol use in determining the probability of having sex.”

Linda Gorman breaks it down:

The consequences of risky sexual behavior fall heavily on teenagers and young adults. In 2002, the incidence rate for chlamydia was 297 per 100,000 population for persons of all ages, 1483 for teenagers, and 1610 for young adults. Similar age disparities are found for gonorrhea, with incidence rates per 100,000 population of 125, 476, and 593, respectively. Moreover, approximately half of all new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States occur among people under age 25. Current teen rates of pregnancy and out-of-wedlock birth in the United States are high by historical standards and high relative to other developed countries.

Although alcohol use has traditionally been associated with risky sexual behavior, there is still a question as to whether excess alcohol consumption causes an increase of risky sexual behavior among young adults. In An Investigation of the Effects of Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol Policies on Youth Risky Sexual Behaviors (NBER Working Paper No. 11378), co-authors Sara Markowitz, Robert Kaestner, and Michael Grossman ask whether alcohol use promotes risky sexual behavior and whether there are public policies that can reduce risky sexual behavior by reducing alcohol use.

The authors look at the influence of alcohol consumption on individual behavior using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the biennial Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. Alcohol use was defined as the number of days in the past 30 days that an individual reported having had at least one drink of alcohol and the number of days on which five or more drinks were consumed. They conclude that, “there appears to be no evidence suggesting a causal role of alcohol use in determining the probability of having sex.” There was some evidence, however, suggesting that alcohol consumption does “lower the probabilities of using birth control and condoms” among sexually active teens.

The authors use aggregate data on the reported incidence of gonorrhea and AIDS infections by state to measure whether state and federal taxes on beer, county laws banning alcohol sales, laws governing blood alcohol levels, and zero tolerance laws for underage drinking and driving affect infection rates. Though women appear unaffected, zero tolerance laws appear to decrease the gonorrhea rate in males aged 15-19, and a one percent increase in beer taxes is associated a 1.1 percent reduction in the gonorrhea rate in young men aged 15-19 and 20-24. Neither the percentage of the population living in dry counties nor laws controlling blood alcohol rates affected either rate of infection.

Now compare and contrast that to Sara Markowitz’s research on the links between alcohol and violence and you’ll see the real reasons why drinking alcohol can be a problem for women.

Legislators Need More Daughters

September 25, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

Ebonya Washingon’s paper, Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues, was published in the American Economic Review (2008, 98, 1, 311-332). Washington, Assistant Professor of Economics at Yale, describes her illuminating work this way:

Parenting daughters, sociologists have shown, increases feminist sympathies. I test the hypothesis that children, much like neighbors or peers, can influence parental behavior. I demonstrate that conditional on total number of children, each daughter increases a congress person’s propensity to vote liberally, particularly on reproductive rights issues. The results identify an important (and previously omitted) explanatory variable in the literature on congressional decision making. Additionally the paper highlights the relevance of child to parent behavioral influence.

If you aren’t sure yet that you’d like to take the time to read Washington’s paper (the link to the PDF is above), Les Picker, of the of National Bureau of Economic Research, explains it:

How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues

“Parenting an additional female child increases the propensity of a member of Congress to vote liberally on women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights.”

Economists have long concerned themselves with environmental influences on an individual’s beliefs and behaviors. There has been significant research done on the effects of environmental factors such as neighborhood, peers, parents, and siblings on such behaviors as educational attainment, welfare use, and marriage. The idea that family, and in particular children, can influence parental behavior seems obvious. In fact, psychologists have shown that parenting daughters will increase the parents’ feminist sympathies. However, among economists, the concept of children’s influence on parents has been neglected.

In Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues (NBER Working Paper No. 11924), author Ebonya Washington considers whether children can influence parental behavior outside of the household, in the way that neighbors and peers continue to exert influence over an individual’s behavior even when the individual is not in the presence of the neighbor or the peer. The author chooses to examine attitudinal shifts in the political arena, asking whether parenting daughters increases a Congressperson’s propensity to vote liberally on bills affecting women’s issues. Using Congressional voting record scores compiled by the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), Washington finds that the presence of female children is a positive and significant predictor of voting on women’s issues.

By turning to the universe of votes recorded in the 105th Congress, she demonstrates that the influence of daughters is most prevalent on a women’s issue for which gender differences are small: reproductive rights. The concentration of the daughter effect in the reproductive rights arena is not surprising, given that past research has demonstrated a link between parenting daughters and liberal beliefs on women’s issues. Reproductive rights is an issue that is thought of as uniquely female; for those voting on reproductive rights, having females in their lives would be particularly salient. A second reason for the pattern of the daughter effect is that reproductive rights are a moral issue. Previous research has shown that legislators are subject to less party pressure and are therefore more free to vote their own views on moral issues.

Washington finds that, conditional on number of children, parenting an additional female child increases the propensity of a member of Congress to vote liberally on women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights. Such a voting pattern does not seem to be explained away by constituency preferences, suggesting not only that parenting daughters affects preferences, but also that those personal preferences affect legislative behavior.

These results suggest that there may be other reverse causalities in the parental/child attitude relationship that should be explored. The results also have a bearing on the body of research on Congressional voting. This paper not only provides a robustness check on the finding that ideology affects legislative voting, it also serves to identify an additional component of that ideology: child gender composition.

About Those Notches On Your Bedposts…

September 18, 2009 / Alessia / 2 Comments

That September/October issue of Psychology Today is chock-full of incredible information on relationships. On page 45, an article by Jay Dixit examines how men & women remember and count their sexual partners.

Conventional wisdom tells us that men inflate their numbers, while women demur their digits — and according to this article, that’s true. But why? Are we both lying to look better, with men trying to project their stud status and women trying to protect their reputations — or their lovers’ feelings?

Norman Brown, a psychologist at the University of Alberta (who finds that American men report an an average of 18 while women report an average of just 5), says it’s not simply a matter of lying. “It has to do with self-presentation, estimation, and memory.”

Women are more likely to “just know,” or to have a tally somewhere, a method psychologists call “notches on the bedpost.” Women are also more likely to use enumeration (“Let’s see, Dave, Tarik, that guy from the gym…”), which produces underestimates, since people forget instances.

Men are more likely to use rough approximation (“Jeeze, I don’t know, like maybe 50?”) or rate-based estimates (“Let’s see, one a month for the past five years…”) — a method that produces overestimates.

But the gender discrepancy isn’t just a matter of poor counting either; the survey method itself matters.

Extremely sexually active women downgrade phone estimates compared to onine. (Men don’t.)

While the article doesn’t expound, I’m guessing vulnerability and anonymity are key here.

Another factor is undersampling prostitutes, who don’t get included in surveys due to “lifestyle issues” — they’re not in the phone book and they aren’t often home during dinner hours.

This is especially important, in my mind, because male clients are included in the surveys — and surely such professional interactions inflate their numbers. (Enlarge scan below to see evidence of this in male celebrities’ self-proclaimed numbers — which, by the way, does not include female celebrities. Arg!)

Surprisingly, men base their sexual partner count on the overheard comments of others — lowering their count to match conservative opinions, raising their count to match permissive sentiments. Women who overhear such conversations are unaffected.

I cannot but help to wonder if it this sheep mentality on the behalf of males which dictates a knee-jerk response to the “moral majority” — men clearly are more insecure and willing to submit to conservative cultural conformity (in word, in preaching; not in deed), and this must drive much of our current politics and societal conversation (including the control of women who aren’t affected by such espoused norms).

The article ends with more familiar territory; in which men are more likely to inflate their numbers when the researcher is female, even though the research shows that the more sex partners a man has had, the less attractive he seems.

Wouldn’t it just be simpler if men just resisted the urge to do or say anything to get laid? It doesn’t work anyway.

Who Came Last, Brad Pitt Or Your Eggs? Maybe It Was You…

September 18, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

This economy has everyone worried about money, and more results from that sex survey in September’s Health magazine prove it.

According to that survey, women think men would rather have more money (53%) than more sex (47%). (My husband asks, “Why not more of both?”)

And a whopping 89% of the women asked aren’t above admitting that they’d prefer a $1,000 bonus at work over sex with Brad Pitt. As one respondent, “Katrina from Scottsboro, AL,” put it, “Brad Pitt would be nice, but I’m sure $1,000 would last a lot longer!”

I’m not sure if that’s a slight against Mr. Pitt, or if Katrina doesn’t have a large balance due on her electric bill, car loan, or MasterCard… In most cases, a phone call to make a payment on any bill — even with waiting on hold &/or pressing the keypad in response to prompts — lasts less than 4 minutes. I suspect Brad lasts longer than that; Katrina, I think you owe him an apology.

Anywhooooo…

The Health survey also reveals that 30% of (their surveyed) women would sell their eggs in a money crunch. And they aren’t talking about their hen’s eggs, either.

Apparently, the women Health surveyed came in a little under recent figures: “Our calls have just about doubled,” says Robin von Halle, president of Alternative Reproduction Resources in Chicago.

But the question was, “Who Came Last, Brad Pitt, your eggs, or you?” and sadly, it’s “you.” Or the women who took this survey anyway. Because when asked to choose between financial security or orgasms every time they”do it,” 80% of the women opted for the money.

According to one “Susan” from North Carolina, she’s “perfectly happy with orgasms every other time!”

Uh, these poor women must not be having the orgasms I’m having.

I’d not trade my orgasms for money or “financial security” or all the money in the world. In fact, my quality of life is directly tied to my ability to get off. Money may be a necessary evil; but there’s nothing evil about my orgasms.

Maybe Susan et all are “perfectly happy” with every other time… Maybe that’s a dream for them… Maybe they don’t know how to achieve their own orgasms by themselves… I don’t know. But it sure explains why they would turn down sex with Brad Pitt — even in a fantasy question. I know I can get myself a whole lot more “happy” just thinking about that than I can fantasizing about spending one grand.

(As usual, you can click the image to get a large scan.)

Money & Career Woes Affect Sex Lives (Who-da-thunk!)

September 15, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

More from that What’s Sexy Now survey published in the September issue of Health magazine, the surprising reveal that only 25% of women claim to have used sex to get their partner out of a money or career funk.

I find that very hard to believe. Not because women are manipulative, but every relationship expert and mental health professional knows that the endorphins from sex lift spirits and personal connections bond & build already secure relationships — sex is quite often a helpful, healthy suggestion for what ails people in monogamous sexual relationships. And the question is “have tried,” not “were successful.

If these women didn’t out-and-out lie, and it’s a strong possibility, it’s only because a “money or career funk” is actually depression for most men — and when men are depressed, their sex drive takes a big dive. Men’s self-image and identities are very connected to their work; their self-worth is directly connected to their libidos. Further proof lies in the survey results in which half the respondents (or their men) gave the old “Not tonight, honey” because of work and/or money worries.

Click the image to read more results from the survey.

Health Reader Survey: What’s Sexy Now?

September 10, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

In this month’s issue of Health, reader survey results on the subject of sex.

Some survey results (and my comments):

75% believe that it is cheating to have a secret e-mail relationship with an old flame

I do believe the “secret” part is a problem, as it connotes an attempt to cover-up. My husband never asks me who I email… If I would be emailing with a former boyfriend or lover, would that mean I would be lying or keeping a secret by omission? Or does his not asking just mean he doesn’t care about my endless emailing? *wink*

34% are friends with an old boyfriend on Facebook or another social networking site

Please note that this apparently includes being friended by one’s 8th grade boyfriend; call me old fashioned, or just plain old, but one’s 8th grade boyfriend is a rather harmless — near forget-able relationship, online or off.)

33% are keeping the social network friending of old boyfriends a secret

If it’s the 8th grade or high school varieties, it isn’t the fear of a “wildly jealous husband” that keeps you mum, it’s the embarrassment, dears.

64% say they “absolutely do not” mention their sex lives via Twitter or other social media site, saying it’s “a perfect example of TMI” — yet 29% “might” read someone else’s “sex tweets”

I suspect this has more to do with people “marketing” aka spamming themselves via Twitter et all and therefore aren’t showing any real aspects of themselves to begin with. But how can your sex live be any more ridiculous than discussing your love or reality television? And perhaps more importantly, how can tweeting about your sex life be any less alienating, personal and off-putting then disclosing your politics or religious preaching? Now that’s too much information.

(As always, click the pics for larger scans.)

Now this next one (the last one I’ll cover today) is very interesting…

The questions was: Whose affair would be more likely to end your relationship?

The response: 41% said their own affair; 59% said his affair.

Naturally, this discloses that Health has limited it’s questioning to heterosexual couples; uncool. But the question itself, the apparent answer options, and the answers themselves are sort of confusing — not because of the nearly 50-50 split, but because I’m not sure how the respondents interpreted the question… Were they answering that his affair would mean he was ready to move on, so their relationship would end? Or did they mean that they would, selfishly, be (albeit slightly) less tolerant of his affair then they expect him to be of their own?

I’m not sure how I would interpret the Q & A, so I’m completely unclear as to my own answer.

There’s more from this survey, but I’m saving it for later.

He’s Got Wingmen; She’s Got Cock-Blockers

September 10, 2009 / Alessia / 2 Comments

Also in the October issue of Psychology Today, a piece about cooperation in courtship by Matthew Hutson titled I’ve Got Wings. The piece, complete with diagrams for play like a football coach would use, may have been so titled to play upon the old wingman dealio; but that’s only half the story as the brief article, covering research by MIT’s Josh Ackerman and ASU’s Douglas Kenrick, exposes that women and men use their same-sex friends differently:

When a woman is flirting with a desirable guy, her girlfriends will tend to leave her alone, but when she’s interacting with an undesirable, they’ll step in. Conversely, guys will leave a buddy alone if he’s stuck with a dud and provide support if he’s onto something good.

This probably isn’t news to you; but it does concisely explain what’s going on as far as wingmen & cock-blocking.

(Yes, you can click to read/see a larger scan.)

Also from Hutson’s article:

Three quarters of participants also reported that they’d used a pal as a decoy mate, typically (for men) to demonstrate desirability to other women or (for women) to ward off other guys.

Top reasons people offered for cooperation in courtship were self-satisfaction, help with future access, and friend maintenance. As competitive as the sating world is, humans advance — and defend — in packs.

If I wanted to continue the pun, I’d say something about dating going to the dogs. But I’m too classy to do that.

The Facts About Children, Sex, Predators & The Internet

September 2, 2009 / Alessia / 1 Comment

Last year the Internet Safety Technical Task Force released the Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies, the Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States, but I wouldn’t have heard of it if it weren’t for the recent article by Michael Castleman at Psychology Today:

Last year, the attorneys general of 49 states created the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to investigate sexual solicitation of children by molesters who troll for targets using sites popular with kids, among them, MySpace and Facebook. The 278-page report concluded that there’s no real problem.

The task force, led by Harvard researchers, looked at reams of scientific data dealing with online sexual predation and found that children and teens were rarely propositioned for sex by adults who made contact via the Internet. In the handful of cases that have been documented-and highly publicized-the researchers found that the victims, almost always older teenagers, were usually willing participants already at risk for exploitation because of family problems, substance abuse, or mental health issues.

The report concluded that MySpace and Facebook “do not appear to have increased minors’ overall risk of sexual solicitation.” The report said the biggest risk to kids using social networks was bullying by other kids.

“This study shows that online social networks are not bad neighborhoods on the Internet,” said John Cardillo, whose company tracks sex offenders. “Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are inhabited mostly by good people who are there for the right reasons.”

The bottom line is, the actual threat to children from sexual predators online is negligible.

So I’m guessing the reason I hadn’t heard of this before was that the findings, though incredibly clear, aren’t willing to be heard & accepted by the population at large. Instead of shouting from the rooftops that the internet is as safe a place as any for children, or even breathing a sign of relief, people would prefer far more salacious, fear-mongering headlines.

In truth, the actual Internet Safety Technical Task Force report says that, “Bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline.” Which means parents should be paying a lot more attention to what their children are experiences (and dispensing) at school, with their friends, etc., than they should be about the invisible “they” known as internet boogie men.

From the report:

Much of the research based on law-enforcement cases involving Internet-related child exploitation predated the rise of social networks. This research found that cases typically involved post-pubescent youth who were aware that they were meeting an adult male for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.

And if you think that’s only gotten worse because kids today are bombarded by internet porn, well, that’s just plain wrong too; from the report:

The Internet increases the availability of harmful, problematic and illegal content, but does not always increase minors’ exposure. Unwanted exposure to pornography does occur online, but those most likely to be exposed are those seeking it out, such as older male minors.

In other words, most kids ignore it, but those (mostly male) youths who want it go for it — just like those meeting with adults or others for sex. Because teens have sex drives, so you’d better be prepared to deal with the issue.

However, the report does not ignore the few times where child molesters have connected with youth online. It says that in the small number of cases, the internet was the first of several steps — the rest of which are no different than how “real world” hook-ups are made. So, if the sexual predator finds prey on the internet & the prey responds, the next step is telephone contact (right under their parents’ noses), followed by eventual meetings in person.

Here’s what the report suggests in terms of advice (I’ve bullet-pointed them, so they are easier to read):

Careful consideration should be given to what the data show about the actual risks to minors’ safety online and how best to address them, to constitutional rights, and to privacy and security concerns.

Parents and caregivers should:

educate themselves about the Internet and the ways in which their children use it, as well as about technology in general

explore and evaluate the effectiveness of available technological tools for their particular child and their family context, and adopt those tools as may be appropriate

be engaged and involved in their children’s Internet use

be conscious of the common risks youth face to help their children understand and navigate the technologies

be attentive to at-risk minors in their community and in their children’s peer group

and recognize when they need to seek help from others.

All of this, though, ignores the basic facts regarding child molestation: Most rapes, sexual assaults, and abuse is perpetuated by someone that the victim knows and trusts.

And I guess that’s the real reason I hadn’t heard of this report & its findings before; people still prefer to pretend they are safe at home, that the unknown danger is “other” and locked outside — or on the internet.

Quick, Check Your Stone Tablet For The Date!

August 27, 2009 / Alessia / 1 Comment

A recent study reports that today, in 2009, 71% of Americans think women should take their spouses name after marriage — and half of the respondents said the act should be a legal requirement!

Researchers from Indiana University and University of Utah say these findings come despite a clear shift to more gender-neutral language. “The figures were a bit sobering for us because there seems to be change in so many areas. If names are a core aspect of our identity, this is important,” said Brian Powell, professor of sociology at IU Bloomington. “There are all these reports and indicators that families are changing, that men are contributing more, that we’re moving toward a more equal family, yet there’s no indication that we’re seeing a similar move to equality when it comes to names.”

Laura Hamilton, the Indiana University associate professor who lead study, was interviewed at NYDailyNews:

When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.”

Other respondents said they felt the marital name change was essential for religious reasons or as a practical matter.

“They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.

Americans who feel that women should take their husband’s last name also tend to be conservative in other areas, according to Hamilton.

“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”

Less Physical Dating Violence & Greater Condom Use — Among Boys Only?

August 16, 2009 / Alessia / 4 Comments

Research done at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Centre for Prevention Science in London, Canada, reveals that a course on dating violence and healthy relationships may provide benefits for high school students, particularly boys.

According to ModernMedicine.com:

David A. Wolfe, Ph.D., of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Centre for Prevention Science in London, Canada, and colleagues analyzed data from 1,722 ninth-grade students attending schools that were randomly assigned to the intervention or to serve as controls. The intervention was a 21-lesson program led by teachers, integrating dating violence prevention with core lessons about sexual health, substance abuse prevention and healthy relationships.

After 2.5 years, the researchers found that physical dating violence was higher in control versus intervention students (adjusted odds ratio, 2.42). Although boys in intervention schools were less likely than the controls to engage in dating violence, girls in both groups had similar physical dating violence rates. Condom use was higher among sexually active boys in intervention schools (67.9 versus 58.6 percent).

“We found support for the hypothesis that teaching youth about healthy relationships and ways to avoid physical dating violence in Grade 9 Health classes would reduce physical dating violence 2.5 years later, but this effect may be limited to boys,” the authors write. “Although overall rates of substance use and peer violence were unaffected by the intervention, exploratory analyses indicated that boys in the intervention schools reported safer sexual practices (indicated by always using condoms).”

Before I say anything else, let me give a great big “Hooray!” that more young men were using condoms!

And a giant “Wo0t!” as the kids would say, that the boys were less likely to be involved in dating violence.

But isn’t it interesting that while the boys in the class were less likely to participate in dating violence, the girls in class were still experiencing the same amount of dating violence…

That sorta changes that “Wo0t!” to a “Shoot.”

Do we conclude that there was some gender bias in teaching &/or course work, and so the girls didn’t learn or accept the information as readily as the boys?

Do we conclude that a large number of the girls date boys outside those classes — and that the girls “knew better” but in the intimidation of the moment(s), they fell prey to boys with a more predatory nature?

Are there just a few bad boys dating all the girls?

Or do we conclude there is some sort of discrepancy between what the boys reported and what the boys did — *cough* LIARS!

Because the abstract gives very little information & reading the full report & findings published in the August issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine requires a fee, I can’t really say for certain what I think…

Do you have any ideas?

~~~

This post is part of the blogathon for Hope For Healing; Twolia generously sponsored me in this wonderful event raising awareness of domestic violence & funds for supporting victims!

You can help too: Comment, link, Tweet & use this special link to iSearch.iGive.com — clicking it and performing searches will raise money for HopeForHealing.Org.

Preventing Intimate Partner Violence, Is Screening Enough?

August 7, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

According to a recent study, the answer is “No.”

Screening for domestic violence followed by referral to a clinician does not reduce the recurrence of violence among women, according to a study for the the McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group, published in the August 5, 2009, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Full text here.) In the published editorial on the study, the authors have this to say:

[This study] should dispel any illusions that universal screening with passive referrals to community services is an adequate response to violence in intimate relationships.

The findings are not overly surprising to me…. And it reminds me of how that “Are you safe at home?” questions is addressed whenever I visit doctors offices, the emergency room, walk-in clinics etc. The question in terms of words varies only slightly (from “Are you safe” to “Do you feel safe” to “How would you rate your sense of safety at home?” etc.), but the manner and tone in which it’s asked varies quite a bit.

For some, it’s such a routine question, it seems as if your answer isn’t even going to register. Others try to toss it in with the litany of other questions, like a sneaky curve ball, hoping you’ll be caught off guard and give away the truth you might otherwise resist. Still others seem embarrassed to ask it — but they are fine with my “dignity” hanging out the back of a paper gown.

I wonder if there have been any studies on how effective the actual questioning aka screening itself is.

Relationship Round Up: Liars & Cheats Edition

August 7, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

#1 People Believe They Have More Restraint Than They Actually Possess. New research from the Kellogg School of Management examines why individuals regularly succumb to greed, lust and self-destructive behaviors — and demonstrates that individuals believe they have more restraint than they actually possess, which ultimately leads to poor decision-making:

People are not good at anticipating the power of their urges, and those who are the most confident about their self-control are the most likely to give into temptation.

So, if you’ve got a guy or gal with fidelity or other issues, you both will need some support — especially if they boast they can control themselves.

#2 The Liar in Your Life. Robert Feldman, psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and expert on lying, says what we think about how and why people lie is wrong — his insights into the world of lying are in his new book, The Liar in Your Life: The Way To Truthful Relationships.

In the book, he debunks the myths and says we’re not only bad at detecting falsehoods, but in fact are strongly and unconsciously willing to believe other people’s lies to make our lives easier — that people aren’t inclined to question the daily interactions they have with family members, or even strangers.

His research also finds that strangers meeting face-to-face for the first time will tell lies three times within 10 minutes, and if strangers meet through a computer conversation, he says, they’re even more likely to lie. ABC’s got an excerpt, if you want to try before you buy.

Oprah: At Least 6 Years Late On Domestic Violence

July 28, 2009 / Alessia / 5 Comments

The August 2009 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, has a feature story (beginning on page 154, after the book reviews?!) on how the laws against domestic violence aren’t enforced. The piece, titled “Why Didn’t They Stop Him?” (by Phoebe Zerwick, photographs by Mary Ellen Mark) is an excellent one — and long overdue.

Not only did I pitch this story roughly 6 years ago to Oprah, but the horrible especially because it’s true story of the ordeal of Vernetta Cockerham which resulted in her daughter’s murder is really only half the story.

Every time I start to blog about Oprah and her ignorant stance on domestic violence (she thinks it’s as simple as leaving), I get so infuriated I have to quit; I have 7 posts in draft to prove it. And this one will be short so that I can finally get to posting something without getting so outraged or ill that I cannot continue.

For the past 6 years I’ve contacted Oprah by every means I could find: via her website’s online form, via email, via phone messages at Harpo, and even spoke directly to producers of the show — who told me the half-dozen books and another half-dozen studies on the subject weren’t enough; call back when I published my own book.

Grrr — I’m in the middle of a battle for my own safety & that of my children; the book, and 1 million other things, will have to wait.

Wait for the day someone wants to open their minds to the realities — before another woman &/or her child(ren) dies.

Yes, Oprah, I told you about the Massachusetts study in 2000 which said that as many as 60-80% of restraining orders are not enforced; and I have the personal experiences to prove it. Running from my abuser kinda kept me a bit too busy to write that book.

Yes, I told your staff about the U.S. Department of Justice study that same year which said that arrests were only made in:

47% of the cases in which the victim reported being raped

36% of the cases in which the victim reported being assaulted

29% of the cases in which the victim reported being stalked.

I especially went into great detail about what happens when children are involved in domestic violence cases.

And I emphatically stated how all of this not only results in victims having a loss of faith in the system, how it not only results in keeping victims with their abusers, but how it is further abuse of victims by the system & how it impacts the children involved.

I even offered to put myself at further risk by going on-air to discuss this.

So, while I applaud you for finally getting to the truth of some of the matters involved in domestic violence, Oprah, I wonder why it took you so long? Especially when you had 6 years of my nagging.

I wonder how much longer it will take for you to heed my voice and take up the other issues I have brought to your attention?

And I wonder how many more women & children will suffer & die during that time.

But I guess death just sells more that saving lives, doesn’t it; don’t worry, continue to ignore us, and you’ll have more deaths to put on the cover of your publications.

Oprah, and staff, be prepared for more calls & emails from me.

Sexism Alert: “The Great Male Survey” Results

July 27, 2009 / Alessia / 4 Comments

Last month, AskMen.com (50,000 AskMen.com readers) & Shine (19,000 respondents over a four week period) conducted its second annual online survey, where real women and men answered questions on such topics as online dating, money, careers, soul mates, marriage, romance, cheating, etc.

One area where men really weighed-in differently was the matter of weight gain. Seems fatty-fatty-two-by-four will be kicked out of the couple’s door — by (surprise!) males.

An overwhelming 70% of women responded to “Would you dump a boyfriend if he became fat?” with “No, his appearance does not affect my love for him.” But 48% of men said they would dump their girlfriend. Shocking? No. Superficial? Yes.

While 75% of US men (just a few points off of their male counterparts in the UK, Canada & Australia) and 63% of the women believe marriage “is a necessary institution, and one that I will participate in to help preserve,” there’s something funky going on… I guess marriage as an “institution to preserve” only applies to skinny folks — for men, anyway.

But perhaps most upsetting to me were the results regarding divorce (as in “she’s too fat to remain with me”). When asked, “Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?” 83% of the men said “Yes.” I guess I’m not surprised to hear men continue to whine about their victimization (as if!), but the women? While the 44% who said, “No, men and women generally get fair and equal treatment,” may seem comforting, look closer and you’ll see that 40% also said “Yes” — 40% of women believe that men are victimized by divorce courts.

Ugh.

I guess these women aren’t really listening to their friends’ divorce stories.

Yet 35% of these whining & irrational men who believed they are treated unfairly by divorce courts say prenups are “Not at all important.” Isn’t that a dumb reaction, to not protect yourself from what you (irrationally) fear?

But that’s only part of the story, really; just look at the questions & results:

For Men:

How important is it to you for your future wife to sign a prenup?

35% Not at all important

33% Not very important

22% Somewhat important

10% Very important

For Women:

Do you want your future husband to sign a prenup?

73% No, I will marry a man who I trust enough to not need a prenup

11% Yes, but I won’t risk jeopardizing our relationship by asking him to sign one

9% Yes, I won’t marry him unless she does

7% No, I’m out to steal his money

And that sexist difference in the survey questions & responses may be the most telling thing of all.

Women too insecure to ask for a prenup? But not the big strong he-man. (He’s just too dumb not to ask, even when he thinks the male created & controlled courts are out to get him because he has a penis. A-duh.) Women asked a question in which they are offered the golden opportunity to self-identify as gold diggers? Where are the men’s sugar daddy responses? And that confusing typo (see 9% female response) — for a minute there I thought they were actually including lesbians. Yeah. Right.

If such sexism was ignored or thought “cute” by the female respondents, then no wonder they themselves are sexist enough in their thinking to believe that men have it bad in divorces.

I do believe now we know why this is called The Great Male Survey; Long Live The Great Male.

*yawn*

Are Dating Messages Too Ambiguous? And What Does That Mean About Rape?

June 17, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

In the journal Personality and Individual Differences (Volume 47, Issue 2, July 2009, Pages 145-149), T. Joel Wade, Lauren K. Butrie & Kelly M. Hoffman present findings of a study on the male perceptions of women’s opening lines. The study, dissected in further detail at PsyBlog, reveals that men prefer women to be very direct — to the point of being boringly blunt. Ladies should ask a man to dinner (#1) as opposed to asking him if he’s busy that weekend (#6); ask him if he’s got a girlfriend (#2) rather than ask about what shows he’s watched (#5).

But the most surprising finding, at least to PsyBlog, was this:

The only surprise is the low ranking of funny or sexual humour. Men don’t seem to appreciate the lewd come-ons suggested by gender stereotypes. This relatively low rating for a jokey approach is another thing shared by both sexes. Previous work by Bale et al. (2006) found that women weren’t particularly impressed with men trying to be funny, despite what we are often told. It seems opening lines are a serious business for both sexes.

This is not surprising to me or readers of this blog — remember when I told you that men, no matter what they say, do not want sexually aggressive women? But it’s interesting to note for another very important reason…

Remember all that commotion & conversation about Steve Ward’s stupid & misogynistic comment on Vh1’s Tough Love? You know, where supporters of Ward’s and those who blamed the victim in the name of Women’s Safety alike declared that Ward’s statement that Arian “would end up raped if she kept talking like that” was accurate and well-intentioned?

These people believe(d) that his (sometimes even admittedly inept) scare tactic was a tool to get Arian (and others) to “wake up” to reality. Of course, they forget that rape is not an act of “misunderstanding” and “misplaced lust” but one of violence; but we’ll ignore that for now and just look at how this study is more proof that Steve Ward is the tool.

Men (and women too), do not find frank sexual talk and humor to be an arousing come-on; it’s actually more of a turn-off.

So there, ladies and gents, you have more proof that wildly sexual talk is less likely to inspire a man to think she’s into him than if she has asked him out to dinner.

And, just to be clear, asking a man to dinner is not a signal for rape. (Heaven help me if any of you argue that point!)

No word, still, on just how direct a woman has to be to communicate that No means No.

So I am still left badgering the point that society needs to condemn acts of sexual violence. We’ll need to say it loud and clear, of course.

Perhaps by way of introduction. “Hi, I’m Alessia and sexual assault and domestic violence are not acceptable.”

I think I’ll get that made on a t-shirt.

Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder: Diagnosis For Abusers?

June 3, 2009 / Deanna / Leave a comment

These guys (&/or gals) aren’t “new,” but they might be about to get a new name. Grrl Scientist reports that Dr. Michael Linden, a German psychiatrist, wants to get a new diagnosable and treatable mental health disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) — the “bible” of mental health.

Named Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED), Dr. Linden notes that PTED is similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), where mentally healthy people are functioning fine — until a triggering event destroys their core values and shatters their basic beliefs, and folks with PTED feel wronged, humiliated and that some injustice has been done to them.

“Embitterment is a violation of basic beliefs,” Dr. Linden explains. “It causes a very severe emotional reaction. We are always coping with negative life events. It’s the reaction that varies.”

Perhaps the most dangerous thing here is the externalization. For while these people suffer from major depression, dysthymia, and anxiety disorders, these people do not feel there is anything wrong with them — at least not anything they can (or should have to fix). Again, according to Grrl Scientist:

“These people don’t have the feeling that they must change, but rather have the idea that the world should change or the oppressor should change, so they don’t ask for treatment,” Dr. Linden points out. “They are almost treatment resistant. Revenge is not a treatment.”

…Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.

In many ways, all of this sounds like every abusive, controlling, person I’ve ever met. Continually managing “what others do” rather than focusing on what they can do themselves — as dismissing the rest.

I would be very interested in learning more about PTED… Meanwhile, girls and boys, be very concerned if you have these people in your lives. Perhaps getting this disorder recognized will be helpful in getting these people the treatment they need — and making relationships safer in general.

Image via.

Of Abuse & Avatars — And Outrage

May 27, 2009 / Alessia / 8 Comments

At first glance what I’m about to post may seem to be back-peddling on my stance regarding rape (the lengthy debate of which you can follow with these posts); but keep reading, because I think what I’m about to share has a lot more to say about society than what’s presented…

CNN reports on a recent study, lead by Jennie G. Noll of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics titled Childhood Abuse, Avatar Choices, and Other Risk Factors Associated With Internet-Initiated Victimization of Adolescent Girls. From CNN’s report:

“Results indicated that abuse status was significantly related to online sexual advances, which were, in turn, related to offline, in-person encounters,” the study says.

The authors say there was no direct link between abuse and offline encounters, but that a history of abuse puts girls at greater risk.

Looking at the girls’ avatar choices, the authors found that girls who present themselves provocatively in body and clothing choices are more likely to have had online sexual advances.

That risk is tied not just to an avatar, but to the overall image a girl projects online, they say. On sites that don’t use avatars, such as MySpace or Facebook, simply compiling suggestive photographs or narrative descriptions can increase girls’ vulnerability, they say.

“Those adolescents who may be unaware of how their appearance might be perceived may not, from a developmental perspective, possess the social sophistication necessary to field and ward off sexual advances in ways that protect them from sexually explicit suggestions,” the study says.

“This may be a particularly important lesson to convey to female adolescents who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and victimization, such as those who have been victims of childhood abuse,” it says.

CNN ends their report with the mandatory, “watch your kids!” mantra.

“Caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” the study says. “As such, the importance of parental monitoring of adolescent Internet use cannot be understated.”

I’m not against such things; I not only believe in such parental involvement, I participate in it with my own children. But, as Diana Hartman notes, this bland bit of advice might actually be counter-productive when it comes to adolescent victims of abuse:

While the study found “caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” it is also important to note that 62 percent of females under the age of 18 were abused by someone known to them. Furthermore, in more than half these cases the biological father was the perpetrator.

Hartman ends her fine post with this sentiment:

Instead of studying the girls, the authors might seriously consider the best way to treat them.

I agree — but equally important, where’s the study &/or training of would-be victimizers and exploiters?

Once again, the behavior of victims & potential victims is what is scrutinized and therefore held accountable rather than that of perpetrators.

It’s easy to dismissively wave your hand at such a thought, to poo-poo me with a, “Where are we going to get honest perps from?” But that poo-pooing only leaves us with more of this shit.

We keep identifying victims, defining their behavior as risqué and risky (and doesn’t that just stink of judgment and victim blaming), regurgitating that information to dictate behaviors of potential victims (mainly women), and through it all, we turn a blind eye to the culprits — the very people who need to stop/be stopped.

You might not think this has much to do with adults online &/or adults dating, but honestly, yesterday’s adolescents are today’s adults; has that much changed? I don’t think so.

And today’s adolescents are the adults of tomorrow; are we educating them for the creation of a better world tomorrow? I don’t think we’re doing that either.

Survey Indicates Single Women Aren’t Sleep-Around-Sluts

March 25, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

Continuing my look at the Maxim 2009 Ultimate Sex Survey, I’m struck by results which may indicate that there are less young 20-something so-called “third wave feminists” projecting an image of sexuality which moves past “available” to “equality means living up to male stereotypes” than I thought. I meet a lot of those young women… *sigh* But either they are fewer in number than I had calculated (feared) — or fewer participated in this survey. In any case, I am heartened to read most of the following survey results. (You can click the pic to see/read a larger image.)

A whopping 67% prefer “rough and dirty” sex — which may sound promiscuous, but not only were the other two options (“over in time for The Hills“, 2% and “slow and gentle”, 31%) lame or limiting (where are the options to mix it up — some sort of combination answer?), but the replies to “How many one-night stands have you had?” were surprisingly low (38.8% said zero, 40.2% said 1-3). And 48% claim the number of sexual partners they’ve had is 1-5. When it comes to cheating, 50.8% say they’ve done it once. (Lived and quickly learned the hard way, I’m guessing.) And just over 61% deny having made any sex tapes.

Bottom Line: These girls aren’t the sleep-around-sluts Cosmo makes ’em out to be. (Or is it that Cosmo tries to make sleep-around-sluts?)

These women are realistic about penis size. The majority (49.5%) say their ideal size is 7-9 inches; runner-up is 4-6 inches with 48.9%.

However, 35.8% say they make their kitty-cats completely whisker-free — and only 3.2% admit to a full fluffy kitty. While nearly 81% prefer a man to trim his pubic hair (good luck with that dream, sister!), 10.2% (the second highest survey result) prefer men au natural — which means women are still more accepting of men as human animals then they are of themselves. (I hope future surveys see some more realistic self-acceptance.)

Maxim Readers In Relationships Met Where?

March 20, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

Continuing my look at Maxim‘s 2009 Sex Survey…

An interesting point to note is that of the 45.8% of women who claim to be in a relationship at the time of this survey, 57.3% of them met their current partner via friends. That’s greater than all the other options (18.9% at work, 10.8% at bar or club, 13% online *) combined.

Granted, that list isn’t every possible way for singles to meet, but I think the heavy dip towards introduction by friends proves my point that meeting people through people you know (aka having friends and a social life) works. And that the fact that your friends know & approve of these guys makes dating more likely to turn into relationships; this pre-screening makes these matches more acceptable to your support network and that increases your success as a couple.

This is not to say that there is no other way, but the old traditional methods still apply to dating today.

Meeting through friends means those in the group will have a greater number of things in common. Not just social activities and interests either. Compatibility has as much to do with similar religious, economic, social or class backgrounds, and other cultural issues (the roots of “values,” if you will), which means that your “at home” feeling with one another is more than just the bond of the familiarity of the faces in your social circle.

So hook up through your friends already.

* Click the scan to read the bit titled, Internet Hating; it’s as much a warning as it is a hoot to read. (Unlike my nemesis publication, Cosmo, Maxim‘s humor is spot-on, not kitsch.)

Of Sex Surveys Run By Maxim

March 16, 2009 / Alessia / 6 Comments

OK, I like Maxim — unlike Cosmo, it’s a magazine that’s pretty clear who and what they are all about. But I have a little bone to pick regarding the 2009 Sex Survey in their March issue (yeah, the one with dreamy Dushku on the cover — I’ve got a girl crush on her, and I don’t care who knows it).

“More than 2,000 female readers of Maxim.com, TheFrisky.com, Lemondrop.com, and PopSugar.com, aged 18 to 48 and from all over the country, took our in-depth survey…” Now I’m no statistician, but 2,000 speaking for an entire gender on the globe — or even the nation — seems pretty small. What’s worse, is that I would have expected a greater number than that just from Maxim‘s site; yes, even just female readers of Maxim should be more than 2,000. Then again, a recent survey says that only seven percent of a magazine’s subscribers seek/read the magazine’s website. But that survey only had 316 participants?!

Then you add in the other websites — all of which I’m sure boast more than 2,000 unique visitors a day to their advertisers — and you have what I’d call a diminutive survey participation rate. (Word to my bloggin’ pals: don’t feel badly about poor blog participation/comment ratios; the Big Sites don’t do any better.)

And that’s before we even get to the readership bias issues of pre-selected groups of women…

It’s pretty clear from the canned “In an effort to help the male readers of Maxim magazine understand us women a little better, they’ve asked…” line used in all the posts of the female-centric sites which partnered with Maxim for this survey that the publication sent out a form letter to the sites they selected — and that they selected/defined women based in large part upon the stereotypical female interests of celebrity gossip, shopping and relationship sites. Not all women are defined by such activities and websites. And the latter, women interested in reading about relationships, pretty much precludes women who are happy in their relationships — which would pretty much seem to be the best ones to offer men (and women) insights into what works. But whatever.

While this all sounds like I’m gonna spank some behinds rosy red (and you know I love to wear my leather domminatix gear when dishing media madness and relationship mythology), I don’t entirely disagree with the Maxim survey results.

So stick around for more; I’m breaking it up into more easily digestible points/posts.

Of Platonic Friendships, Jealousy & Tunics

February 6, 2009 / Alessia / 2 Comments

Growing up, my dad often expressed the fact that men were always looking for sex.

When you just hung out with a boy, he’d outright ask — or at least those eyebrows would, “Did he make a move on you?”

When you laughed out loud that Steve was sooo not that kind of guy, dad said, “Oh, yes he is.”

And when you argued your case, illustrating just exactly how Steve never did make a move of any kind, even when you were literally crying on his shoulder about how some jerk guy had treated you, dad would reply, “Oh, he’s one of them tunics then.”

“Tunics” was the word he used because once, in struggling to recall the word “eunuch“, his mouth mistakenly said “tunic”. We never let him forget it either, so the word “tunic” became synonymous with “eunuch” — and you can imagine our laughter in the 70’s when fashion sported the tunic and there was much flowery talk, including of freedom, used to sell it.

Anyway, dad used the word “tunic” to describe platonic situations.

He just couldn’t understand how any man — even one who respected you — would be able to restrain himself from stealing a kiss or at least giving you one of those long romantic looks which would turn a girl’s belly to goo and let her know that romance was in the air…

Dad’s point was that everyman was looking for romance & sex — unless he was physically unable to perform it. So if Steve wanted to spend time with you, but did not make a move at all, there must have been something literally, physically preventing him from it.

It’s not that dad was a letch — he was, and remains, one helluva a romantic, intelligent and sensitive man. To him, spending time with a woman was about all a man needed to do to feel amorous — especially a single guy whose ultimate love was still waiting for him out there somewhere. Any girl could be The One — or at least a lot of fun.

He even told me about a time when my sister and I were little girls and we went to the mall with him. He spotted a pretty young woman with her own child in a stroller, and he and that woman shared a moment. Their eyes locked briefly, they each noted the other’s children and presumed marital status, then locked eyes again & smiled, as if to say that if they had met in another place and time…

Even happily married people with no intentions weren’t sexually or romantically dead; so why, dad reasoned, would an available guy do the time with an available girl if he wasn’t wanting to do the deed?

Dad was not a whistling wolf. He did not appear as a cartoon sex predator. Yet he said men were always ready and looking… It was confusing, but I had to believe him. Sometimes he was right too. But does that mean that there are no such things as platonic friendships between heterosexual men and women?

CNN recently posed the question in a recent article titled Should your wife have guy-friends? According to recent data, platonic relationships do occur:

Some 83 percent of the people surveyed think that cross-gender friendships can and do exist, according to a 2001 Match.com poll of more than 1,500 members. And a 2006 study by Canada’s Public Health Agency of nearly 10,000 Canadian children shows that they often start early, with 65 percent of boys and 60 percent of girls declaring three or more close opposite-sex friends by grade 10.

But as many of you with such opposite-sex friendships know, they aren’t always accepted — especially by your romantic partners and lovers who just don’t understand:

Jealousy over an opposite-sex friendship can be the result of projection, says Dr. Bonnie Jacobson, a New York City clinical psychologist and author of “Love Triangles: Seven Steps to Break the Secret Ties That Poison Love.”

“People project onto another person something they would do,” Jacobson says. “If Tom says to Sally, ‘I don’t want you to hang out with Harry,’ it’s very likely Tom feels he would violate that boundary [if he were in the same situation], so he imagines his wife will, too.”

I know this is true; I’ve seen it acted out. But what about the guys, like my dad, who really just don’t get it? Not because they are projecting, not because they are jealous jerks, but just because the concept is so foreign to them?

Well, keep those lines of communication open. Listen to his concerns, his point of view, but reassure him too by explaining how it works for you. Other advice from that CNN article includes the following reality checks:

• Be honest. “Never lie about the time you spend with your friend,” Sabatini says. “If you don’t feel comfortable telling your husband you’re going to hang out, then maybe he has a reason to worry.”

• Socialize as a group. “Spend time with both your significant other and your friend,” Sabatini says. “And acknowledge your love for your spouse in front of your friend.”

The Science Behind My Personal Seduction

February 2, 2009 / Alessia / 1 Comment

I finally was able to get in to take that questionnaire regarding Friday night’s Science of Seduction show (the show must have been popular because I had a heck of a time logging in and getting the question pages to load — most frustrating).

First of all, I should say that like many such quizzes, I was frustrated by the all or nothing options for reply; why can’t they offer that middle road option of “neither A or B” or “I don’t feel strongly about any option”. And the language/phrasing is sort of ridiculous — “I laugh with my partner ‘Always'”?! Even when he’s sad? I don’t think that’s a real option. Fully aware that these absolutes, no matter how silly &/or frustrating, allow for easier computations, I proceeded. But I just had to vent (and perhaps warn those of you who feel likewise about such things).

Now onwards, to the results…

While watching the show, my first instincts were that I would be a Director — or at least have strong enough Director tendencies to warrant them appearing in my results. But maybe that was Old Me; I’ve surely changed over the years. (Which too brings up the subject that we do change, and so what does that say about biology? It must be more fluid than fixed, right?) Anyway, I did not receive any Director notes in my findings.

Instead I’m an Explorer with a side dish of Negotiator.

OK, so I totally can see myself as a combination between Angelina Jolie and Bill Clinton. And I’m guessing both of them figured they’d have some Director results too.

Since I’m not dating, but happily married, the only way I could really attempt to evaluate this scientific belief system was to get the husband involved. So I make him take the test when he returned home from work.

The husband was deemed Primarily a Builder, with secondary Director traits. Because he is even more jaded about such personality tests than I am (and had not seen the show, so he thought we were suppose to match in our findings), his response to hearing my results was to jokingly say, “So we’re going to divorce?”

I told him then that Builders are to fit with other Builders, Explorers with other Explorers, and that Directors and Negotiators are to fit together well. His reply was the sardonic, “So we’ll only get a quarter of a divorce then.” I’m not sure that math is right (I’m thinking it’s half non-matching); but at least his reaction was similar to mine: We are not doomed no matter what these quiz things say.

In reflecting upon our likelihood of relationship success based upon biological anthropologist Helen Fisher’s theory, I’m not exactly convinced.

Not only do I remain skeptical about the findings (I still feel I am a Director of sorts; and the husband’s Director status leaves me puzzled, frankly), but I don’t think the theory is any more sound than astrology — or Myers-Briggs. Maybe that’s a part of my non-conformist Explorer self.

But should the science be more accurate than my faith in it, I do think there are things to learn here.

For example, the husband is far more traditional that I; it’s something that rears it’s argumentative head from time to time when we approach problems and plan activities. And maybe that Director thing — even my thinking I am one — is part of our troubles in final decisions; I sometimes do feel that my solution is less accepted because I’m more intuitive, even in my logic (I don’t have flip charts to present to him). So I can see where a couple could use this information to negotiate problems. Such information could prove useful when navigating problems — if you can use the science to remove the “personally” from “personality” and thereby feel less judged. Then maybe you can relax in the knowledge that your partner’s traits are their traits; not a sign that you’re wrong.

Of course you’ll still have to deal with your differences.

For those dating, knowing more about yourself and the kind of persons more likely to suit your type can help spare you some heartache.

20/20’s The Science of Seduction: Why Him, Why Her?

January 30, 2009 / Alessia / 1 Comment

Live blogging 20/20’s show The Science of Seduction: Why Him, Why Her?

When I first heard about the show, which is sort of based upon biological anthropologist Helen Fisher’s book Why Him, Why Her? — a book which claims there are personality types — I thought, “Well here’s another form of astrology.” I won’t say I hate astrology; those daily things suck, but the general overviews are slightly informative. Then there’s Chinese astrology etc. So maybe these are some basic bits of information on personality, but what about personal experiences? I know far more women who are happily married to ‘men just like their dads’ then perfect astrology matches.

But after hearing of the research and science behind, I’m more intrigued…

I don’t think we are any more trapped by biology than we are the stars or family patterns. However, I think I want to check out this book and see if it is perhaps yet another layer — another framework among several. And when you lay each over the other, you end up with a complicated, yet far more accurate image of how we seek , who we find, and what we end up with.

Part of the television program also included being ‘damaged’ or insecure regarding relationships based on former experiences, opting to show professional matchmakers as a means to find love, or at least meet people. It wasn’t very helpful as far as remedies to your fragile belief in dating & relationships, but there was something very informative in this segment. The matchmaker said, “Many people say they want love, but aren’t ready for love.” I found that to be the most important part of that segment. It was too bad that 20/20 edited it to look as if the matchmaker was defensively using this as an excuse for not having perfect performance.

On the flip side, 20/20 erred in the next segment their aired. It was on arranged marriages, and rather than focusing on the wisdom provided by the expert who mentioned that a huge key in the success of Indian arranged marriages was the ceremony which clearly put an emphasis on the investment of both the bride & groom’s families and their communities to make such marriages work; 20/20 ended the segment with the small percentage rate of divorces in India, leaving out the plethora of cultural differences which can also account for such disparity. Leaving that as the last word, rather than the insight into total family & community commitment to the couple’s success, left me lingering on more negative, less helpful facts.

Second to that, were the damning statements about love as depicted in song and film (something covered in that study I’m participating in).

Ah, so at the end, the expert, Helen Fisher, does agree with me that love & romance are far more complicated than it sounded at the beginning. *wink*

I’m off to take the questionnaire to see “what I am” — and I think I’ll make the husband do it to. Then I’ll have more to say.

Let’s Date Like My Sister Eileen?

January 9, 2009 / Alessia / Leave a comment

I made issue #14 of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy (yea me!), which reminds me that I should give you an update on that media and relationships survey I’m participating in…

The survey is based on your TV and movie viewing habits of the past week, which means you’re reporting on your holiday season habits. Personally, my sitting-on-my-butt and watching television &/or films time has been very limited by holiday stuff — but also because TV programing has sucked the past month. This means I’ve watched mainly The History Channel and NatGeo (which, unless you categorize this watching as “news” puts your viewing in the “other” category on this survey) and it has had, upon reflection, little to do with my relationship values — other than to find great pleasure in the fact that my partner also likes geek TV.

I’ve also snuck in the occasional TCM (and other old film) viewing. This has been secretive alone-at-night-while-working movie watching — but not because it’s some naughty or guilty pleasure to watch a “chick flick”. Writing, being a solitary pursuit most enjoyed by night owls, lends itself to complete remote control domination when one is well, you know, screwing around and not working. However, my point is, that the movies I’ve watched (including The Pleasure Seekers, My Sister Eileen, and Sabrina) were retro films, if not all Classic Films with capital C & F, and as such it’s damn near impossible for a feminist to watch those films and not giggle, smirk, or groan at the sexist roles and actions. They are entertainment (served with an equally entertaining side dish of snark that I am unable to turn off) not some map for relationship bliss.

If they were, then I guess my first tip in getting a date would be to go out drinking with your sister & two fellas, walk drunkenly to a gazebo, and have the four of you burst into song, dance, and imaginary instrument playing a la My Sister Eileen. But then, you’ll also end up with some other guy… Which involves some lying, lots more song and dance, the Brazilian Navy, and lots more…

My point is, if I (and any other intelligent sentient being) can realize that musicals are fantasies, why would anyone expect to find tips on relationships & romance in such films?

Oh, and I also watched Elf; and that didn’t make me think that I might have missed an opportunity to mate a real elf and get myself closer to Santa’s Nice List.

So, over all, my feelings regarding media and relationships have neither changed nor become more enlightened by this survey process. While there’s still weeks to go (and I am interested in what may come from the experience), I’m still amazed that there are people out there — that I’m sharing this same world with — who honest to gawd, still base their real world relationship expectations upon images in film and television.

May gawd help us all.

Of Cars, Cavemen & Cooking

January 5, 2009 / Alessia / 1 Comment

I was driving this weekend and on the car radio (in some town I was driving through so I can’t remember the town or the station) a DJ was announcing the “news” that women are more attracted to men who cook over the presumed status symbol of the car he drove. (I’m assuming he got the idea here.)

The male DJ was freaking out at the idea, asking for female callers to confirm or deny such a thing. As woman after woman called in confirming the “news”, he was becoming more incredulous. “This goes against everything we men knew,” he said (though I am paraphrasing a bit from memory), “We guys go and get the job to get the car because that impresses women.”

Uh, what century is he living in? We women have been able to have careers & buy our own cars for quite some time now — and while we may not be paid dollar for dollar for the same work, we certainly aren’t going to go all batty-eyelashes & giggly-hair-flips over a man with an automobile.

Since we are working, we obviously prefer a man who can & does cook. We don’t want to be made to feel that we are responsible for a man literally dying from hunger while we work our medical internships, stay late at the office to get the promotion, or meet the girls at the martini bar for happy hour. And isn’t it nice to have a man make the meal, serve the meal to us, and clean up afterwards! We all like to be catered to, no matter our gender, orientation, marital status, height, hair color, or make of our automobile.

While the men embracing this new ‘trend’ in self sufficiency are now called gastrosexuals, apparently there are men, like that DJ, who are shocked if not appalled at such outrageous gender role changes. I could call them all cavemen — and in search of gold diggers no less! — and leave it at that, but we do have to face some facts here.

Along with personally maintaining culture lag, these folks are genuinely puzzled. While their knuckles figuratively drag on the ground, these men stand slack-jawed & wondering — just how are they supposed to be a man and compete for a mate?

The times, they are a-changin’ and they just don’t see where they fit in.

I’d say you shouldn’t worry about them; but quite often these men move from perplexed to frustrated, doggedly refusing to change their beliefs and ways. I’ve personally see quite a number of them become angry & abusive asshats. To those of you who face such throwbacks, I say throw him back and keep on fishing. If he’s not going to change, he’s going to expect you (or try to make you) change to fit his world view, and that’s just no good.

Even if he’s not an abusive asshat, you’re going to end up “taking care of him” because “you’re the woman, that’s why” — and if you at all wish he would become a fully-functioning human being able to care for himself on a daily basis, you’ll end up resenting your role as care-taking-mommy to him.

As an example, I offer up one of the female callers to that radio show who said that she didn’t care about cars. She not only preferred a man who could cook, but one that could do laundry too; she herself had been cooking and doing her boyfriend’s laundry for five years and she “hated it”. Now I don’t know this woman or her man; but she was resentful enough to call into a radio show and complain — but there she was, doing the cooking and laundry (and who knows what else?) for this guy for five years!

She can’t blame him; she has to blame herself for staying there and doing it.

I hope she’s also got a good job. That way, one day, she can come home good and exhausted, be faced with making his meal and washing his undies, and just snap — get into her car and drive away.

Of course, the flip side of all of this was the one female caller who said that she just wanted a man who had a car; she was tired of the guy who couldn’t afford the bus pass — and the way she said it, she was talking about those shiftless male gold diggers. They not only don’t have a car; they refuse to work. And they expect you to provide all the food — buy the clothes and launder them too. Get in your car and drive far away from them, because they’ll drive you crazy and drain your accounts.

Kitsch-Slapped

Category: Studies