You're Teaching My Child What? (21 page)

In light of that country's stance, it is worth noting that, as in the United States, young gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in the Netherlands report more high risk sexual behaviors, higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea,
⁶⁷
and more mental health problems
⁶⁸
than their heterosexual counterparts. In these studies, younger age was not protective; even as Dutch society became more accepting of sexual minorities, the health disparities persisted. Clearly, societal bias is not to blame for the disproportionately higher numbers in the homosexual populations in the Netherlands.

I'll be called names for bringing attention to this data, because it doesn't jibe with the ideology of the activists seeking to change our country by indoctrinating the next generation. But who suffers the most when members of “sexual minorities” are always portrayed as victims? Who suffers when society—a force they can't control—is blamed for all their ills? They do, of course. And how can they be helped if we're afraid of the truth? The consequences of same-sex
experimentation are not as rosy as kids are led to believe, and society's intolerance of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is just one of many reasons why.

When Alice tells her curious twelfth grader, “If you like sex with both guys and girls, lucky you,”
⁶⁹
she's turning a blind eye to a mountain of evidence that says the opposite. When Ms. Schroeder justifies experimenting with the same sex, she is, as I said, encouraging our most vulnerable teens to play in a minefield. How does this advice go unchallenged, even while the numbers of young casualties swell?

If their priority was teen health, sex educators would not be focused on recruiting kids to become mouthpieces for their social agendas. They'd be telling them hard truths about hazardous behavior and epidemiology, truths that have nothing to do with lobbying skills or riding the Bus for Equality. Same-sex behavior
⁷⁰
in adolescence is more dangerous than heterosexual behavior, they'd explain. The playing field is not level. While it's smart for all teens to delay sex, it's particularly important for you.

Educators teach teens they have the right to complete, accurate, and up-to-date information. What could be wrong with that? When you look closer, though, you'll see they mean the right to an uncensored, encyclopedic knowledge of sexuality—including, but not limited to: instructions on how to masturbate,
⁷¹
kiss, perform oral
⁷²
and anal sex
⁷³
arrange a
ménage à trois
(“household of three,” or “three-some”),
⁷⁴
get birth control and an abortion without parental knowledge,
⁷⁵
purchase and care for “toys,” and set up a sadomasochistic “scene.”
⁷⁶

It would appear, however, that it's okay to deny teens' rights to information in some instances. As discussed earlier, when research highlights the differences between male and female—the immature cervix, the actions of oxytocin and pheromones—it's banned. It's
taboo. So while your daughter can easily gain expertise in sexual practices, I guarantee she'll remain ignorant of the most compelling research about sexual orientation ever conducted. A landmark study, probably the most significant ever on female sexuality, is being ignored because its findings fly in the face of entrenched dogma.

Your daughter could sit through years of comprehensive sex ed, read every word about being gay or lesbian on Teen Talk, Scarleteen, SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, Outproud, Sexetc,
gURL.com
and Alice, and research every website, book, or video they recommend. This is what she'll know: some men are gay, and some women are lesbian—as if it's the same phenomenon, two sides of the same coin. But it's not.

“I don't know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.”
⁷⁷

The confession was that of Anna Montrose, 22, writing in
The McGill Daily.
She was sharing with the world how hard it is to “keep your rigid heterosexuality intact” while going through university, studying philosophy and gender, and “watching
The L-Word.”

While being interviewed on a radio talk show,
⁷⁸
she explained that prior to arriving on campus at age eighteen, her “rigid heterosexuality” was intact, and she was unaware of any sexual attraction to women. Now, after a few years on campus, and sexual experiences with both men and women, she believes society's preference for malefemale bonding is “wrong in that it limits other possibilities, which are equally good.”

Is Anna Montrose unusual? Can a campus environment, or studying gender theory, influence a young woman's sexual desires and behavior? Social scientists have been examining the question for decades, and they have an answer.

Meet Dr. Lisa M. Diamond, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. After studying women like Anna Montrose for years, she introduced a model of female love and sexuality
⁷⁹
that challenges previous assumptions. The revelations in her book
, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire
,
⁸⁰
will astonish you.

Diamond followed almost 100 lesbian, bisexual and “unlabeled”
⁸¹
young women for a decade, focusing on the development of their sexual identities. This study was the first to follow women's sexual transitions as they occurred over an extended period of time.
⁸²
Her findings not only contradicted existing models, they contradicted them, in Diamond's words, “strongly and consistently.”
⁸³

To begin, most of her subjects were like Anna Montrose; before consciously questioning their sexuality, they had no awareness of attraction to other women.
⁸⁴
In contrast to the prevailing model of homosexual identity, early attractions to girls did
not
predict lesbian orientation later in life.

Their sexual identities were characterized by change, not stability. Two-thirds changed their identity at least once during the study,
⁸⁵
and one-third two or more times.
⁸⁶
The identity change was most commonly in the direction of opposite-sex behaviors.
⁸⁷
The rate of change did not decrease over time. “Coming out” did not as a rule bring increased certainty and stability. As years passed, they acknowledged
more
fluidity, not less.
⁸⁸

Some findings to illustrate the point: Of the women in Diamond's study who initially identified as lesbian, 60 percent had sexual contact with men during the next ten years, and 40 percent did so within the first two years. Even among those who identified as lesbian for the entire ten years, more than 50 percent had some sexual contact
⁸⁹
with a man.
⁹⁰

Her findings would be remarkable if they ended here. But this is only the beginning. Diamond's study showed that female fluidity does not just happen—it can be “triggered.” One facilitating factor may be
heightened physical closeness and contact. Some girls and women have the potential of being profoundly influenced, in both thought and behavior, by their environment: a class on feminism, joining a political organization, attending an all-girls school. (In fact, students at Smith College joke that the college motto should be “Queer in a year or your money back.”)
⁹¹
And, for girls, awareness of same sex attraction often
follows
questioning instead of preceding it. That is,
girls don't question because they feel attracted to their friend; they feel attracted to their friend as a result of questioning.

There's been information out there about female fluidity for a long time. An article from 1984 in
The Journal of Sex Research
described how women lured into “swinging” by their husbands ended up bisexual. A landmark book in the 1990s reported that a college education increased women's likelihood of becoming lesbian by a factor of nine.
⁹²
Apparently, Anna has a lot of company.

But Diamond's study was the first to follow girls and women long-term, and her findings suggest that once girls enter the anything-goes “questioning” world, they could find it difficult to reach resolution and closure.

In other words, the openness and experimentation SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth and the entire sex ed network celebrates may well add to a girl's confusion and distress.
⁹³

This information is vital to young women like Anna. Where, if not in sex ed class, and on sites like
gURL.com
, can they learn it? Who, if not people like Schroeder and organizations such as SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, are responsible for conveying it? Girls need to know about the G-spot, but not this? Diamond publicized her findings regularly, in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, and finally in February 2008, with publication by Harvard University Press of her book. Why then, in 2009, are Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and the rest still telling girls that their sexual orientation is innate—“who you are deep down,” something you “just know,” a “true inner feeling”—as if these were indisputable truths?

This simply is not true.
⁹⁵
For some girls, experimenting may lead to confusion over sexual orientation. It's not always the other way around.

If the women in Diamond's study were sensitive to “facilitating factors,” it seems reasonable to conclude that some girls and teens, who turn to sites like Teen Talk, scarleteen, and
gURL.com
, are even more sensitive to “triggers” in their relationships and environment. Their thoughts and sexual behavior are no doubt very prone to influence. I remind you, as well, that all girls (and boys) go through a period in which the opposite sex is considered “yucky,” and that during this pre-adolescent period, and after, many girls have particularly intense same sex friendships. For example, a study of eleventh and twelfth grade girls found that they are much more comfortable and engaged with their female friends than with their male friends. And yes, lesbian relationships often have their beginnings in those comfortable female friendships.
⁹⁶

What happens when a girl with this vulnerability takes Ms. Schroeder's advice “to experience [same sex intimacy] and reflect
carefully on the feelings that come up as a result of the experience”?
⁹⁷
Let's be honest: She's likely to experience same-sex feelings, at least temporarily.

Is there a problem with that? There could be. In addition to all the other identity challenges of adolescence, she'll need to cope with this one too. And as Diamond has shown, her identity may shift for years. She may not have closure for a long time. Is that likely to promote, or obstruct, establishing a stable, committed relationship with one person, something most people want very much?

To glamorize the questioning of sexual orientation and promote experimentation with same sex intimacy is hazardous to our children, and it must stop. It introduces doubt to young minds that are especially sensitive and vulnerable to influence. For those kids who are genuinely confused, reassurance should be provided, but so should reminders that sexual activity—especially with both sexes—is dangerous and won't necessarily help sort things out. If preoccupation with the issue is significant, counseling may be needed. Otherwise, these kids need to get the same advice: delay sexual behavior.

Once again, the ideologues have it all wrong. They value, most of all, for kids to question themselves and the world. They wish to cultivate openness to all possibilities. But their goal should be to help teens achieve a firm and enduring sense of self, so that they know without a doubt who they are and can move on to the challenges of adulthood.

As a psychiatrist, I know that one source of help in reaching that goal is therapy. But here, once again, we are treading on dangerous ground, ground that the vast majority of those directing our children's sex education have marked as forbidden territory.

Educators at places like SIECUS and Advocates for Youth teach kids that sexual orientation changes. Then, as if it's a done deal, they discredit any claim of successful
intentional
change.
⁹⁸
Even Dr. Diamond, whose research overwhelmingly indicates a “quirky and mercurial”
⁹⁹
quality to female sexual attraction, insists that intentional
change is impossible—and violates “APA [American Psychological Association] ethics.”