Thursday, February 27, 2014

Hook-up culture. OMG.


I always thought I was fairly "hip" as far as parents go. I used to be a sex ed teacher, and J and I talk fairly freely about sexual topics. He seems open to asking me questions about sex. It really hasn't been a problem.


Do you know what "hooking up" means? How about "hook-up culture"?

I was at a workshop last night with a group of other parents, and the speaker informed us that the norm nowadays - the NORM! - is to have sex first and THEN to talk to the person afterwards and maybe decide to have a relationship of some kind. But maybe not. The thing to do is to have sex. "Hook up." Period.

That's the norm!


She gave us some historical background. In the 1950s, you were supposed to stay a virgin until you were married (for women, at least, that was expected). Dating was something you did to get to know someone in preparation for marriage. During the '60s and with the rise of the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, and availability of effective birth control, there was more uncommitted sex, "casual sex." But now, she said, "hooking up" has become the norm.

And today: sex first, talk later. WHAT?!?!?!

What about relationship? What about communication? What about love?

None of that, for this generation. It's just sex.


This is from an article I just read on the American Psychology Association website called Sexual hookup culture:
It is an unprecedented time in the history of human sexuality. In the United States, the age when people first marry and reproduce has been pushed back dramatically, while at the same time the age of puberty has dropped, resulting in an era in which young adults are physiologically able to reproduce but not psychologically or socially ready to "settle down" and begin a family (Bogle, 2007; Garcia & Reiber, 2008).
These developmental shifts, research suggests, are some of the factors driving the increase in sexual "hookups," or uncommitted sexual encounters, part of a popular cultural change that has infiltrated the lives of emerging adults throughout the Western world.
Hookups are becoming more engrained in popular culture, reflecting both evolved sexual predilections and changing social and sexual scripts. Hook-up activities may include a wide range of sexual behaviors, such as kissing, oral sex and penetrative intercourse. However, these encounters often transpire without any promise of — or desire for — a more traditional romantic relationship.

I'm going to hide under a rock now. And I'm building a box to hide my son in until he is 30.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Getting older ain't for sissies

I picked up a copy of More Magazine the other day – a magazine “for women of style and substance” – mainly because it was staring me in the face while I was waiting to check out at CVS, and also because I’m considering submitting an essay to this magazine. From what I read, More targets women ages 30 and up.

Once I started flipping through More, however, I became completely engrossed in the ads – much more so than the actual articles. Of course, there were the usual ads for makeup, jewelry, clothing, and diet products. But there also were other ads that I wasn’t expecting.

 Here is a list of the ads in a recent issue of More. I am not making this up.
  • Age defying makeup and hair products 
  • Night treatment for skin 
  • Hair regrowth treatment 
  • Prescription medication to help with painful intercourse (2 ads: 1 for a pill, and 1 for a cream) 
  • Lubricant for sex 
  • Overactive bladder relief 
  • Fiber for constipation relief 
  • Natural progesterone supplement to reduce the symptoms of aging 
  • And a brand new product, liners that you wear in-between your buttocks for accidental bowel leakage (ABL) 
So what do you think? According to More Magazine’s advertisers, women 30 and over are dealing with dry and wrinkly skin that needs defying, hair that needs re-growing, intercourse that needs lubrication, bladders that are overactive, and bowels that leak, as well as bowels that do the opposite, and jewelry to cheer us up while we wither in our old age.

And this isn’t even AARP magazine.

Ladies, we are screwed.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Mammograms in photos

With all the mammography controversy these past few days, I've been noticing a number of stock photos that are just... well, take a look yourself. These are all via

Hello, welcome! Glad to have you here! But I think you forgot to take off your shirt and put on your lovely gown!
Great, you put on your gown! And glad to see how happy you are! But now we really do have to take off the gown to do your mammogram.

Okay, you can just take one arm out of the sleeve, and we'll try it that way.

Good try! A tube top AND a come-hither look. But really, you have to take it off to get the mammogram done.

Yes, that's more like it. Shirt completely off. Nice jeans and belt!

Yes I just need to give you a hug so I can get you in the machine....
Just relax....Oops, I think you took everything off by mistake!
This is what getting a mammogram REALLY looks like. If they showed it like this in photos, no one would do it.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Earlier isn't necessarily better

Well, everyone’s up in arms again about mammography and whether it is effective or not. Today’s culprit is an article in the British Medical Journal that analyzed a large Canadian study and found that mammography led to no reduction in mortality from breast cancer. Some are vehemently arguing that this study is flawed. But, this study builds on other studies that have had similar findings. I’m not ready to dismiss it yet.

Even though it goes against the common refrain, when it comes to breast cancer, early detection doesn’t necessarily mean better outcomes.

I know, for years we’ve been told: “Get a mammogram, catch it early, get treated, and you’ll be fine." But that is not always the case.

The reality is that some breast cancers are very aggressive, and even if they are discovered early and treated, will eventually metastasize and lead to death.

Other breast cancers are not aggressive, and will not spread and cause harm, even if left untreated or if they are treated later on. And some breast cancers may even go away on their own.

The problem is, right now we don’t know how to determine if a particular breast cancer is going to be aggressive or non-aggressive. We have clues, but we don’t know for sure. So we have to treat every breast cancer as if it’s the aggressive kind.

That is what leads to overtreatment.

Another problem is that, for an individual, this information is not helpful. If your doctor finds a tumor in your breast, what woman is going to say: okay, I’ll wait a while and see if it’s an aggressive or non-aggressive tumor? That kind of decision could cost a woman her life. On the other hand, submitting to unnecessary treatment can cause all kinds of side effects and medical issues that might be completely, well, unnecessary.

Here’s another way of looking at the issue of whether “catching it early” is really important. Let’s say there are two women, Jennifer and Sandra. Jennifer finds out about her breast cancer from a mammogram when she is 50. She is treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, and does well for a while. However, in spite of all the treatment, her cancer metastasizes when she is 55, and she dies at age 57. So you could say that after her cancer was discovered, Jennifer survived for 7 years.

Sandra finds out about her breast cancer when she is 55, when it is Stage IV and has already metastasized. Sandra dies at age 57. So you could say Sandra only survived 2 years after diagnosis. Both women die at the same age from a similar cancer, but Jennifer’s tumor was discovered earlier and treated, although this treatment didn’t extend her life.

This is called lead time bias. The National Cancer Institute puts it this way: “This increase in survival time makes it seem as though screened patients are living longer when that may not be happening... It could be that the only reason the survival time appears to be longer is that the date of diagnosis is earlier for the screened patients. But the screened patients may die at the same time they would have without the screening test.“  

So where does this leave us? Well, Dr. Deanna Attai, a breast surgeon in Burbank, CA had this to say on her Facebook page: “We need better tools - currently mammograms are a bit "one size fits none.” She continues: “Hopefully studies like these will promote more research. We need to identify who will actually benefit from mammography, and we predict which patients do not need screening. We are definitely moving towards more personalized care - we're just not there yet.”

Some links:
Too Many Mammograms
Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Breast Cancer