For Goodness Sex (7 page)

I call these routine ways of doing things conceptual models. Models help us understand rules, expectations, and procedures. Once internalized, models can have a powerful influence on the way we think and behave—they influence our everyday habits and routines. For example, when it comes to getting dressed, any number of models can produce successful results. We probably don’t think about the fact there might be more than one model, but when we find ourselves, as I do, with a husband who thinks that pants go on before socks when in my model socks go on before pants (
obviously!
), those models become crystal clear. Models for dressing are benign, but a problematic model that gets internalized can lead to unhealthy outcomes. The “sex is like baseball” metaphor has become a conceptual model in our country; it’s certainly the basic framework for the way most young people learn about sex from their peers, and it has an impact on their habits and behaviors. For example, a girl might make a rule for herself about what base she’ll allow a boy to “go to” on a first date. It’s an arbitrary rule and may have little to do with her own values, wants, and needs, but it’s derived from widespread acceptance of this conceptual model. The baseball model also provides the standard language used for talking about sex in the media and in popular culture. Unfortunately, it’s hugely problematic.

One of the ways we know that baseball has become an internalized model for sexual activity is by how casually we invoke this metaphor. Want a few examples? I’ve got plenty! First, there are the “bases,” which refer to specific sexual activities that happen in a very specific order and ultimately result in “scoring a run” or “hitting a home run.” This usually means having vaginal intercourse to the point of orgasm, at least for the guy (there’s one glaring problem with the model). People are generally “pitchers” or “catchers” and that corresponds to whether you perform a sexual act or receive a sexual act. You can “strike out,” which means you don’t get to have any sexual activity. If you’re a “bench warmer,” you might be a virgin or somebody who isn’t “in the game”—maybe because of your age or because of your ability or your skill set. A bat’s a penis, and a nappy dugout is a vulva or a vagina. A “glove” or a “catcher’s mitt” is a condom. A “switch-hitter” is a bisexual person, and those in the gay and lesbian community “play for the other team.” And there’s this one: “If there’s grass on the field, play ball.” And that means if a young person—specifically a young woman—is old enough to have pubic hair, she’s old enough to have sex with.

I’ve always disliked comparing sex to baseball, in part due to the gender assumptions it makes. It sets up the idea that sex is a game and that there are opposing teams. On one side is an aggressor who’s trying to move deeper into the field, often thought to be the boy; and on the other side is the girl, whose role is to defend her turf. It’s competitive. We’re not playing on the same team; we’re playing against each other—so someone wins, and someone loses. Another way to look at the gender roles in this model is to see boys as the players and the girls as the field upon which the game is played. For many young women in my class, the shock of this realization leaves them stunned, then sad, then angry.

It’s also assumed that you play baseball in baseball season and when there’s a game on the schedule. The timing isn’t really up to you. So if it’s prom night or if a teen’s parents aren’t home or someone’s drinking at a party, the assumption is: Hey, it’s batter up! If you’re serious about playing baseball, you don’t turn down the chance to get in the game. You don’t sit in the bullpen just because you’re tired or not in the mood to play. The expectation is that when you’re called to bat, you’ll be there.

And when we show up to play baseball, there’s no need to discuss the rules or how you might want to play the game. Everybody knows how baseball works; you simply take your position and start playing. Rounding the bases is just what you do when you’re dating. Some might argue that, when it comes to hooking up, “sliding into home” is what it’s all about. Can you imagine a baseball player choosing to stay at second base when home plate is an option—even if they might like second base a whole lot better? Just like baseball, the assumption in sex is that everyone has the same priority: scoring. You move through first, second, and third base, not stopping until you slide home. There is an established order in which each activity happens.

In this model, the decision to become sexually active is influenced more by external factors (this is how the game is played) than by internal factors (I’m ready, I’m committed to my sweetheart, and so on). It’s not a decision being made by our kids for themselves. Often they’re doing it because they’re following what they
think
is the “right” model—the only model many kids have for sexual activity.

They think that rounding the bases is the only way to enjoy their sweetheart intimately. Many actually feel pressured into having intercourse simply because it’s the “next” logical step. If they don’t want to have sex, the relationship isn’t moving forward or growing the way they’ve been told it should, or they don’t really love their partner. I remember one student of mine who came to me because she was terrified of telling her boyfriend she wasn’t ready to have sex. “He’s going to think I’m a baby,” she told me. The decision not to have intercourse made her feel immature in her circle of peers, which was ironic, of course, because her thoughtful and informed decision actually made her one of the more mature seniors in my class.

Sex as baseball isn’t just sexist. It’s homophobic. It’s competitive. It’s goal-directed, and it’s unlikely to result in the development of healthy sexuality in young people. It’s also just plain negative. After a game, there is the expectation of heading into the locker room and rehashing the highlights—who performed well, where the scorecard stands, who stole a base. Lots of kids don’t like to think about sex as a game. There’s nothing in the baseball model about pleasure or intimacy or love. Nonetheless, most kids feel they should be following it. I think part of the reason this model has endured for so long is that it’s clear-cut. When you’re in middle school and just trying to understand what various sexual behaviors look like, it’s helpful to have a straightforward, chronologically ordered model to illustrate how it all works. Plus, the baseball model offers an easily shared way of communicating about a private subject. It feels less risky to chat casually with friends about sexual activity if you can refer to intimate sex acts as first, second, and third.

So what would it take for us to stop seeing sexual activity as a challenge or a conquest?

A new model.

So I’ve cooked one up. It avoids the pitfalls inherent in the baseball model, and it’s something I’ve talked about in packed roomfuls of parents, to youth-service providers at conferences, and even in a TED Talk. So here it is: Instead of baseball, let’s talk for a minute about pizza.

Did you smile when you read that? Did your mind conjure up a picture of your favorite pizza place, or a memory of eating really good pizza? That’s the first good thing about my pizza model. Pizza is something that is widely and easily understood and something that most of us, including our kids, associate with a positive experience. The same can’t be said for baseball. There are certainly fans of baseball who love it and immediately have positive associations with it, but I’ll bet more people have a positive association with pizza.

To start, think about when you have pizza. Unlike baseball, whose schedule and rules are dictated from the outside, you have pizza when
you
want pizza. You eat it because you’re in the mood for it. It starts with an internal sense, an internal desire, or a need. “Huh, I could go for some pizza!” The decision to act on the impulse rests with you—you are in control. I can recognize that I’m hungry but know that it’s not a great time to eat. That ability to make a deliberate decision about our desire is a huge factor in developing healthy sexuality.

Another positive change in the pizza model is that when we get together with someone for pizza, we’re not competing. We’re looking for a shared experience that’s satisfying for both of us. And even better, when you do decide to order a pizza with someone, what’s the first thing you do? You talk about it. You talk about what you want; you talk about what they want; you may even negotiate.

“How do you feel about pepperoni?”

“Not really into it. I’m kind of a mushroom guy myself.”

“Well, maybe we can go half and half?”

Even if you’ve had pizza with someone for a very long time, don’t you still say things like, “Should we get the usual . . . or maybe something a little more adventurous?”

In other words, when you talk about sharing a pizza, you talk about desires and choices. You talk about the things that you both want, and you work together to make the best decision for both parties. Pizza puts you and your sweetheart on an equal footing. You’re suddenly asking, “What’s our pleasure?” What will taste good to both of us, and why? There are a million different kinds of pizza, a million different toppings, a million different ways to eat pizza. And none of them are wrong. They’re different, and in this case different is good, because that’s going to increase the chance that both people will have a satisfying experience.

And with pizza, there is no winner or loser—there is no competition. Shouldn’t that be the model we use for sexual activity? Instead of rounding the bases, what if you asked: “Are we satisfied? Did we eat enough—did it taste good?” What makes us feel satisfied might be different amounts at different times. It might be different depending on whom we’re sharing pizza with. But the key is that
we
get to decide when we feel satisfied. If we’re still hungry, we might have some more. If we overindulge, we’re likely to feel lousy. We have the power to make the decision that’s best for us.

A lot of sexuality education in classrooms today is influenced by the baseball model. It’s about forbidding kids from running the bases or, in more liberal programs, preparing students with contraceptives to protect against what is assumed to be the inevitability of intercourse. Either way, the baseball model supports the stereotype of boy as aggressor and girl as defender, and it’s arming students with an unhealthy view of what it means to be sexually active. But if we could create sexuality education that was more like pizza, as I try to do in my class, we could create lessons that invite people to think about their own desires, to make deliberate decisions about what they want, to talk about their choices with their partners, and to ultimately look for not some external outcome, but for what feels satisfying.

In baseball, the coach, players, and umpire often yell out commands or judgments. “Stick close to the bag!” “Keep your eye on the ball!” “Strike three!” My pizza model is about asking questions. “What do you like on your pizza?” “How many slices do you want?” “Do you want to have pizza again tomorrow?” Learning about one’s sexuality should be about assessing desires and asking and answering questions. That’s what I hope you’ll encourage your children to do as you read this book: ask and answer questions. I hope you’ll encourage your kids to use pizza as their model for sexual activity: It’s something to be enjoyed and explored and, ultimately, savored.

Normalizing the Sex Talks

D
uring our lessons on sexual activity, I divide my students into four groups and give each group a different question to answer. The questions are: Why would boys your age have genital sexual activity (oral, vaginal, or anal)? Why would boys your age not have genital sexual activity (oral, vaginal, or anal)? Why would girls your age have genital sexual activity (oral, vaginal, or anal)? and Why would girls your age not have genital sexual activity (oral, vaginal, or anal)? As with all activities, I make it clear that answers should be inclusive of all sexual orientations. The reasons might be different for same-gender and different-gender couples, or they might not be. The students huddle into their groups talking excitedly. I ask them first just to generate a list of as many answers to the question as they can. Don’t judge them, just brainstorm away. After they’ve generated a long list, I ask them to select from their list what they believe are the top five answers to the question. The noise level in the room increases as they work to come to consensus to present to the class. I’ve found my students’ answers throughout the years to be surprisingly similar. Remember as you read them, though, that these are just the responses I’ve gathered from my class. You might want to think about what your child and their friends’ answers to the questions would be.

The top five reasons why boys would have genital sexual activity:

1. Because it feels good
   
2. Because you really like or love your sweetheart
   
3. To increase your reputation
   
4. Because you get caught up in the heat of the moment
   
5. Because societal expectations make you feel like you have to.
   

The top five reasons why girls would have genital sexual activity are different:

1. Because she was asked to
   
2. Because she wants to keep a relationship going
   
3. Because she feels peer pressure from her friends or boyfriend
   
4. Because they’re in love
   
5. Because they want to experiment or try new things
   

The top five reasons why boys wouldn’t have genital sexual activity are:

1. They are insecure about their body or about their penis size
   
2. Religious beliefs
   
3. Questioning their sexual orientation (maybe they’re gay and not yet out)
   
4. Fear of getting a girl pregnant
   
5. Insecure about their knowledge or ability to have sex
   

The top five reasons why girls wouldn’t have genital sexual activity are:

1. Fear of pregnancy or STDs
   
2. Religious beliefs
   
3. Fear of getting a bad reputation
   
4. Haven’t met the right partner yet
   
5. Fear that it will hurt
   

There are a lot of interesting assumptions in my students’ answers. If boys are presented a chance to have genital sexual activity, there’s no reason
not
to do it. It’s rare to find a guy who says he’s not ready for sex. Many heterosexual girls assume that the first time having intercourse is never pleasurable because “it’s supposed to hurt.” (By the way, many heterosexual boys also think that it’s going to hurt for girls the first time, but they don’t think about ways to avoid that either.) I frequently remind students that when sex is something both partners want, instead of something one or both feel pressured into doing, it’s a much better experience, no matter what the sexual activity is. Having a conversation about why you’re both into it can make it more pleasurable for everyone involved. Being fearful or overly anxious can make it less pleasurable. Notice also the heterosexist assumption that if a boy isn’t having genital sexual activity, it might be because he’s gay. I have to address that so we can make sure we’re thinking about the full spectrum of diversity and including everyone in our ideas.