One Utah

In Utah, sexuality seems to forever be waiting to emerge from the shadows into a dark and torrential scandal. In 2008 we have had at least three brouhahas - the Blue Boutique and the teacher in Herriman and the nude cell phone pictures of teens in Davis County. And some absurd public pronouncements concerning Victoria’s Secret Mannequins. I understand the public pool in Kanab has banned bikinis and speedos since wearing them is somehow at odds with a family atmosphere.

It seems we can reliably expect the good people of Utah to have some sort of meltdown about sex on a relatively regular basis but without any actions to distinguish between the real and imagined, between serious problems and unserious concerns. There’s a tendency to believe that if the speaker in question (one thinks here of the woman who complained about the Victoria’s Secret window display or the woman who proclaimed that the Blue Boutique’s customers would rush to Sugar House Park and assault small children upon leaving the establishment) means what she says in all seriousness that we are required to treat it seriously. But some claims are simply unserious. Treating them as if they are meaningful or serious does not make them so. It also makes it difficult to sort out what to in response to the truly serious - i.e. teens in Davis county texting each other nude pictures of themselves. It also makes it difficult to figure out the appropriate response.

The idea, often expressed, is that we must treat all moral concerns equally. But the parents who were so concerned about the Blue Boutique’s new location were fundamentally unserious - their arguments were absurd and overblown. That JT Martin got caught up in the hysteria reflects badly on him as well as on Utah’s inability to engage in a public discussion about matters of sexuality. The Tribune’s LTE deploring the window display at Victoria’s secret brought over 200 responses, many brutally mocking the letter’s author, but many others defending her. Sexuality, it seems, cannot be discussed in Utah absent some sort of moral panic. The resulting hysteria often brings calls to man the barricades and fight against immorality for all we’re worth. These calls for defending “values” are so common they have little or no lasting effect outside our knee-jerk elected officials who so fear appearing to “advocate” immorality that they rush to the Hill to pass laws.

Not all concerns about morality are of equal value or weight. That an adult would be so offended by a window display in a shopping mall that she feels she must write a letter to the editor is laughable. Like the people who were mortally offended at Janet Jackson’s boob during the Super Bowl (and who demanded that such family entertainment not be besmirched by boobs) the complaint does not deserve to be treated with any seriousness.

Paradoxically, in the Super Bowl “boob gate” and Victoria’s Secret and the Blue Boutique there are serious questions we can explore. Victoria’s Secret, as my female friends avow, has the best quality and best fitting bras available; you pay more for them, but they last longer and are more comfortable to wear. However, rather than rely on the quality of their product to generate sales, Victoria’s Secret commodifies sexuality and portrays female sexualty in ways that are not representative of real people. We can and should be asking questions about VS’s means of portraying sexuality and the effect it has on people.

The parents in Herriman have overreacted. They have been thrown into a moral panic over the mere concept that their children might know something about oral sex, masturbation and homosexuality. Unable to face that their kids might know something all on their own, the parents have declared war on a health teacher. These parents are definitely teaching their kids about sexuality but the kids are learning sexuailty is shameful, scandalous and shocking. Sounds to me like a recipe for teenage rebellion.

So now I find myself at long last at the only truly serious issue of sexuality that has emerged in Utah this year - the issue of teens using their cell phones and webcams to send nude photos of themselves and their peers to one another. Like many issues of teenage sexuality, this practice strikes terror into the hearts of adults. It provides undeniable proof that teens are sexual beings. The teens in question have faced criminal charges under child pornography laws. Such responses defy logic but feed into adult fears about adolescent sexuality by defining teens as children no different than two year olds.

The seriousness with which we as adults should treat adolescent sexuality must be tempered by humor, love, and the kind of honesty that adults find almost impossible when dealing with teenage sexuality.

So how should we as adults and as communities respond to our teens who texting nude photos of themselves around. First, and this is the landmine, we have to be clear that while many people (adults as well as teens) engage in such behaviors, they are fraught with risks and we must work with our teens to sort out and managet those risks. Having worked with adolescents (as well as some 20 somethings) very often when we are young we tend to not realize that what we put out sexually isn’t just seen by the objects of our affection. To put it another way - you may be dressing to appeal to the hottie sitting two rows over, but the stoner sitting two rows behind you can see you too. A few years ago, the receptionist at my office was trying to attract one of our coworkers. She wore her sexy best for days and was almost constantly in tears as the grubby fifty something electricians kept trying to hit on her, as the skanky warehouse guys kept hitting on her. Fortunately someone sat down and explained the reality to her; it may not be right but you need to know how it works. So we need to explain - sure this photo may be going to one person, but there’s no reason to think that’s the only person who will see it, and it will probably end up with people you don’t want seeing it.

Second, we need to engage adolescents in conversations about healthy sexuality. We should encourage them to explore what it means to express their sexuality in healthy, life-enhancing ways. To do that we as adults need to engage with one another about what it means to express our sexuality in healthy, life-enhancing ways. What does it mean to be a sexually healthy person and what means of expressing our sexuality are healthy? We as adults need to learn how to be honest about sexuality, to learn how to discuss both the good and the bad of sexuality, to be able to talk about our regrets without making it seem all of sexuality is regretful and to talk about the good without making it seem all of sexuality is a celebration. Building these skills will remove the stigma from sexuality and will reduce sensational aura around sexuality. Treating it matter of factly will help not only adults but teens to deal with sexuality in healthy, natural ways. It will free us to talk about moral agency and decision making with regard to sexuality without moralizing.

Finally, we need to provide adolescents with safe, trusted adults with whom they can discuss sexuality in addition to their parents. There are questions that teens simply don’t feel free to ask their parents. They are afraid of the responses, afraid they will be judged or conversely just aren’t ready to share with their parents. The parents in Herriman have made the mistake of seeing the health teacher as enemy rather than ally. This attitude underlies Utah’s restrictions on teaching about sexuality where our legislators and parents have defined information as the enemy and information giving as a dangerous act. They’ve left few avenues for young persons to get information and they have guaranteed that young persons will get the wrong information.

The challenge we face a culture is the challenge of looking at the parents in Herriman and the group opposed to the Blue Boutique and the woman who complained about Victoria’s Secret and helping them get a grip on their fears. The fear of parents that their children will be damaged by information is a very real fear, but the thing being fears is unrealistic. Helping these parents identify their concerns and manage them will go a very long way toward helping us end these constant moral panics over . . . nothing. Or more correctly, over the wrong things.

The parents in Herriman are worried their children can’t understand or will be harmed by knowing about sexuality. The very fact that the students were asking the questions should tell the parents that their kids need the information. Trust me, it takes a lot for a young person to trust an adult enough to ask those questions. The parents unrealistic fear of harm from information comes because the parents themselves haven’t figured out sexuality. Just because you’ve had it doesn’t mean you get it. The parents protesting the Blue Boutique believed their children would be endangered but like the “stranger danger” nonsense from a few years ago, such fears are about the one in twenty danger. Your kid is in danger of being sexually abused, but its far more likely by a scout master than some person who just bought a dildo at the Blue Boutique. The fear itself is real, but not realistic.

When it comes to sexuality, it seems so often in Utah, the unserious drive the debate with their very real but completely unrealistic fears. Its past time to stop being unserious and unrealistic and start being serious and realistic about sexuality.

This entry was posted Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 8:41 am and is filed under 4th Estate (Media), People Are Nuts, Religious Fundamentalism, SLC Politics, Salt Lake City, Sex, Society, This Blog. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.