Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences (34 page)

Given that only a minority of Americans hold such religious beliefs, it is disturbing that federal policies for sex education are tailored to reli- gious conservatives. Shouldn’t our sex education policies be appropriate for the majority of our youth? It is even more disturbing in light of what scientific studies tell us about the relative effectiveness of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex education programs.

Evaluating Different Approaches to Sex Education

To date, few abstinence-only sex education curricula have been evaluated using scientifically sound methods.
38
Quality assessments of such leading programs as Sex Respect, Teen-Aid, and Human Sexuality: Values and Choices—all of which depict virginity as a gift—have largely failed to support advocates’ claim that program participants delay first intercourse significantly longer than nonparticipants (much less postpone sex until marriage) or are less likely to become pregnant during adolescence.
39
Be- cause the majority of teens, regardless of their experiences with sex edu- cation, have vaginal sex before they graduate high school, abstinence- only programs’ policy of ignoring condoms and contraception, or of fo- cusing on (and even exaggerating) their failure rates, pose particular problems.
40
As a report by the Centers for Disease Control notes, “[P]eople who are skeptical about condoms aren’t as likely to use them— but that doesn’t mean they won’t have sex.”
41

In contrast, dozens of scientifically sound studies have demonstrated that sex education programs that include information about abstinence
and
contraception and STI prevention do result in participants’ delaying first sex, having fewer sexual partners, and using condoms and other forms of contraception at significantly higher rates than nonparticipants

— all behaviors associated with lower rates of pregnancy and STIs.
42
That’s right, talking about contraception and STIs
delays
virginity loss and
promotes
safer sex. These programs, especially those that take a truly comprehensive approach to sex (e.g., curricula developed around Sexual- ity Information and Education Council of the United States [SIECUS] guidelines) tend to present virginity as a step in the process of growing up. Notably, none of the sex education curricula judged to reduce “sexual risk behaviors” by the CDC’s Research to Classroom Project, a project commissioned to identify sex education programs shown to be effective in scientific studies, uses an abstinence-only approach.
43
That said, an in- creasing number of abstinence-only curricula are now undergoing rigor- ous evaluations; it remains to be seen if any will be found effective.

Cross-national studies also point toward the effectiveness of compre- hensive sex education and of framing virginity loss as a step in a learn- ing process. In comparing the United States to similar societies, we find that American and western European adolescents become sexually ac- tive at similar ages on average; however, pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates are significantly lower among European teens, as are STI rates.
44

This disparity stems in part from European teens’ greater propensity to use condoms and other forms of contraception, a propensity enhanced by national health insurance systems (as opposed to the private, for-profit system in the United States).
45
But cross-national differences in adolescent sexual outcomes can further be traced to broad cultural attitudes about sexuality in general, and adolescent sexuality in particular. American sex- ual culture is rife with ambivalence, whereas western Europeans exhibit a sex-positive pragmatism. For example, there is an openness about sex- uality in Europe that is absent in the United States, evidenced by nudity in mainstream magazines and television, nudity on public beaches, and sales of sexually explicit literature. Condoms are advertised more widely in European media; in fact, condom ads have only recently been permit- ted on American TV. Compared with 36 developed countries, the U.S. ranks low on openness and has the highest level of teen pregnancy by far.
46
In American popular culture there is a lot of sex, but sexual themes are often depicted as secret and “dirty,” especially when teenagers are in- volved. Although few U.S. adults reject premarital sex per se, a majority believe teenagers should abstain. Parents typically perceive teens as too immature to engage in sex responsibly and teens, in turn, usually seek to conceal their sexual activity.
47
By contrast, European mass media regu- larly examine sexuality, and few adults disapprove of premarital sex, even among teens. Parents tend to treat sexual activity as a normal part of healthy adolescent development—that is, as a learning process or a rite of passage—and many teens inform their parents of their sexual activity (at least if it is heterosexual).
48
These broad cultural outlooks have had profound effects on public policy, with the United States favoring policies that seek to restrict all sexual activity and western European countries promoting education about, and provision of, contraception and instill- ing a sense of responsibility for its use.
49

It is more difficult to assess the effects of abstinence-only and compre- hensive models of sex education on young people’s emotional and psy- chological well-being. Although federally funded sex education programs are required to teach “that sexual activity outside . . . marriage is likely to have harmful psychological . . . effects,” there is virtually no scientific evidence that this is true.
50
In the words of a joint report by Advocates for Youth and SIECUS, published in 2001:

It is true that unprotected sexual activity can lead to unplanned pregnan- cies, STDs [sexually transmitted diseases], and HIV. It is also true that

intimate relationships can be harmful for some people. However, the re- ality is that the majority of people have had sexual relationships prior to marriage with no negative repercussions.
51

The claim that premarital virginity loss often causes emotional harm seems predicated on the belief that virginity is a precious gift intended
for a spouse
or an act of religious faith. As we have seen, these beliefs are by no means universal among Americans today.

Furthermore, given the emotional and physical harm that we know can come from unplanned pregnancy, STIs, and HIV/AIDS, it behooves us to face the facts about virginity loss among American youth. If we can provide them with information and guidance in keeping with the reality of their lives, then we can help ease their way into adulthood and healthy sexual lives.

7

Virginity Lost

Physical health and emotional well-being represent central components of sexual health, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), former U.S. surgeon general David Satcher, and other leading authorities. As defined by the WHO in 2002:

Sexual health is a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well- being related to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dys- function or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful ap- proach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, dis- crimination and violence.
1

This definition informs my comparative analysis of the four metaphors through which people in my study made sense of virginity loss. By ad- dressing approaches to virginity loss in terms of their effects on sexual health, I am moreover interrogating the assumption, codified in the fed- eral government’s guidelines for sex education funding, that all sexual ac- tivity outside of marriage is likely (equally likely, it is implied) to cause physical and psychological damage, irrespective of a person’s under- standing of sexuality or virginity.

As it turns out, the vast majority of the people I interviewed lost their virginity with few, if any, ill effects. All of the nonvirgins had lost their vir- ginity before marriage; 2 of the 5 virgins were planning to wait until their wedding nights.
2
Whether they interpreted virginity as a gift, stigma, step in a process, or act of worship, on balance most men and women de- scribed their experiences as satisfying, even enjoyable, and avoided unin- tended pregnancy and STIs (a few scares notwithstanding). They also felt as though they had been in control and treated fairly by their partners. My research therefore represents an empirically based challenge to the

194

claim that virginity loss before marriage, or during adolescence, in- evitably causes physical and psychological harm.

In itself, this is an important finding. But, in light of the distinctive con- stellations of sexual beliefs and behaviors fostered by different metaphors for virginity, it is also crucial to consider whether specific understandings of virginity loss enhanced or diminished the physical and emotional well- being of the individuals who subscribed to them. Moreover, it is worth asking whether these metaphors perpetuate or disrupt prevailing patterns of gender inequality, especially in heterosexual relationships. Because the major models of sex education currently vying for dominance tend to promote different understandings of virginity loss, my findings can also help inform the national debate about sex education policy in the United States.

Unequal Effects

Of the four interpretive groups identified in my study, the gifters were the most likely to practice birth control or safer sex at virginity loss (and dur- ing the “close calls” that often preceded it). The close relationships these young people had with their sexual partners made it easier and more ac- ceptable for them to protect their physical health in this manner. Close re- lationships could also heighten feelings of emotional well-being. But be- cause reciprocation is the linchpin of gift relationships, virgins who fa- vored this metaphor effectively ceded substantial control to their partners. Women and men who gave their virginity to loving, reciprocat- ing partners—the majority in my study—pronounced themselves satis- fied with their virginity-loss experiences; Kelly Lewis and Bryan Meyers’s warm recollections of relationships strengthened through the mutual ex- change of gifts were typical.

However, gifters whose partners did not reciprocate felt not only dis- appointed, even devastated, but also deprived of sexual agency. This was especially the case for heterosexual women, given their lack of power rel- ative to men. Julie Pavlicko and the other women whose male partners did not return their gifts felt disenfranchised at virginity loss
and
in sub- sequent relationships. Their distress was magnified by the exceptional sig- nificance accorded to virginity loss when virginity is framed as a precious, unique gift. The gift metaphor’s emphasis on reciprocation had other ill effects as well: Danielle Rice and a few other women told me that they

would have left abusive or unworthy partners earlier had they not given those partners a precious part of themselves. In sum, approaching virgin- ity as a gift facilitates behavior that protects physical health and has the potential for enhancing emotional well-being; but it also sets the stage for possible emotional devastation and the loss of agency, for women in par- ticular.

People who favored the stigma metaphor measured their experiences against less stringent criteria, by comparison. Every man and woman who avoided coercive encounters and having new stigmas imposed upon them spoke of their virginity-loss experiences in positive terms. Some, like Marty Baker, basked in the pleasures of engaging in a new sexual activity and being stigma free; others, like Kendall James, relished the titillating stories they were able to tell. On the downside, however, the intensity with which most members of this group wished to conceal their sexual in- experience, along with the unanticipated circumstances and casual rela- tionships in which many lost their virginity, resulted in the lowest rates of contraception and safer sex in my study. Men especially viewed conceal- ment as imperative, given the cultural equation of masculinity with sex- ual experience. That imperative was aggravated by the relative power- lessness of stigmatized people, such that men in this group were especially vulnerable to humiliation and disempowerment at the hands of female partners. Derided as virgins or sexual incompetents, Bill Gordon and two other men felt such shame that they avoided sex long after losing their vir- ginity. Gender expectations worked to the advantage of women like Emma McCabe, however, sparing them from the perils of concealment and enhancing their ability to dictate the terms and timing of virginity loss. Thus, although seeing virginity as a stigma is conducive to emotional well-being in general, it increases men’s risk of emotional distress and loss of sexual agency; and it tends to discourage safer sex. The partners of the stigmatized may also fare poorly, to the extent that they are treated as a means to achieving the end of virginity loss.

Women and men who interpreted virginity loss as a rite of passage were not ensured of physically and emotionally positive virginity-loss en- counters. But they were better equipped than members of other interpre- tive groups for dealing constructively with the awkward and unpleasant aspects of an often-imperfect experience. Some found the process of vir- ginity loss quite enjoyable—Abby Rosen for one—while others, like Jen- nifer Gonzales, spoke of extracting kernels of good from largely unpleas- ant encounters. In a sense, it was virtually impossible for people who