The Art of Sport (and Loving your Body)

I’ve been reading a lot lately about women athletes being objectified as sex objects, and I’d like to take a moment to address the subject. While I certainly don’t think that objectifying anyone is a good thing to do, I’d be lying if I said I never had a screensaver of a gorgeous athlete whose bones I’d totally jump. Tell me Apolo Anton Ohno is not pretty to look at. But we can pretty much all agree that he is what and who he is because his sport is so much of his identity: he’s in great shape, so we like to look at him, and he’s successful because he’s in great shape and is massively talented. That being said, I don’t know if you noticed but he’s HOTT. Danell Leyva, Usain Bolt, shoot, even Tim Tebow’s not hard on the eyes, and I don’t like him. But what about the ladies?? Yeah, we have an entire culture of douchebags who only see women, athletes or otherwise, in terms of what we can do for their cocks. I, however, would like to offer an alternate way of thinking about young female athletes baring all.

The incomparable comedian Elayne Boosler said that the new rules of society shall be “you can’t get famous by being naked or sleeping with a celebrity: you have to make a contribution to society first.” Frankly, I think these women have. They are brave and hard-working and talented, and if they want to show us the side effects of all that training time, i.e. their amazing bodies, then more power to them. They’ve worked hard and they look great, and they should enjoy every moment of living in their hard-won human forms. It sure as shit beats beauty pageant culture.

It was only just outside my mom’s generation that women were not encouraged to be athletes at all, let alone thought of as attractive for being athletic. Of course, naked culture was much more under wraps than it is now, but really. The athletic female form is still kind of new in the grand scheme of mainstream attractiveness.

Just like their male counterparts, these women work tremendously hard and are passionate about what they do, and in my opinion that is something that makes them beautiful inside and out. Sometimes boys see better than they think, so they see only hotness where there is so much more, but fuck ‘em!! They’re not smart enough to understand that for Alicia Sacramone, Gretchen Bleiler, Lolo Jones, and on and on, hot and sexy is just the beginning. These women are badasses, and if they want to celebrate their stunning, enviable bodies by getting naked in front of the camera, then I say you go, girls. So many women don’t like their bodies, but yours are a monument to what hard work will get you.

You are living!!

Anyway, it’s just a thought, and I know that there is more to the argument than just this one idea, but I wanted to put this thought out there. I feel like we should all feel comfortable as we are, with or without clothing, or in the clothing our sports gave us to work with. (A shout-out to some of the ill-fitting leotards I’ve had to wear in public in order to compete in gymnastics!!)

I Seethe Sometimes.

I don’t know why I did it. Sometimes commenting on other people’s political status updates is a suicide mission, because there’s usually someone out there who is going to shut you down. As my step-dad (jack Mormon, misogynist, child abuser) used to say “I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s it.” There is no room for discourse: “Truth hurts,” as one gentleman said online this evening, in reply to a FB friend’s post I was commenting on. By truth he meant his opinion, but talking to anyone about the difference between fact and opinion is all but useless. Anyway, this comment was in response to my saying that I could not in good conscience vote for Ron Paul, or any candidate who is anti-choice. One fellow brought up the idea of “monolithic voting,” which is certainly valid, but if an issue is important one should certainly not vote against one’s own interest, and as a woman reproductive freedom pertains to me on a number of levels.

This other man (the truth hurts guy) says, and I quote, “the country > your uterus.” He goes on to say that if I choose to have sex, not if a woman chooses to have sex, but “you” then “you” are responsible for “your” choices. Certainly, sir, but your candidate, Dr. Paul, is actively in favor of taking those choices away.

Incidentally I, meaning me, do not have sex anymore. (Stay tuned) I appreciate the possibility of the assumption that I must be pro-choice because I hate babies and men and all child-bearing women and I’m obviously a huge slut that doesn’t want to be responsible for myself. I admit, he didn’t say it, but it’s been suggested before, so I’m going with it. Join me, won’t you??

Choosing not to have sex for the time being is in part a health issue, at this point, as I have HPV. I’m well aware that something like 80% of sexually active adults have it, but 80% of sexually active adults are not currently paying for the cancer screenings I do not, nor have I ever, had any sort of coverage for. No government funding, no sliding scale, no friends or family helping me out. The cost for my next biopsy will come directly from my pocket, as did my last, and will likely land me into collections when I can’t make the minimum payment every month. As did my last. So, yes. I am actively responsible for my reproductive health, to the best of my ability, and to the best of my ability that means not having sex until I get this latest cervical cancer scare under control.

Because that is what I’m dealing with right now.

Ain’t no one payin’ my damn medical bills. Not the guy from whom I contracted HPV who accused me of cheating on him, which I did not do. At no point did either of us have visible warts, or it might have been an indication to stop and investigate. I can’t speak for his ass, because I left him a long time ago, but I still don’t. So when people say “warts” like they’re these big and green and oozing, nasty things, they’re not. Incidentally, this guy told me he tested negative for HPV. If he’d actually seen a doctor then he’d know that there is no HPV test for men, but I think he was more interested in accusing me of being slutty than acknowledging that he and I may have a problem. But that was enough for him to convince himself that I was cheating on him, which is what’s important sometimes.

I had sex as a teen, and I got pregnant. I don’t have to tell you how that turned out: she’s fourteen. My parents’ insurance dropped me the moment the stick turned pink. I went to clinics and found out I could have an abortion for free or cheap, but if I were to continue my pregnancy (which is another hot-button political issue, still) I would have no reasonable, healthy choice than to go on state-funded medical for the duration. So I did, and when the duration ended, so did my health care. I was eighteen. I’ve gone without ever since, mostly because I’ve been a reasonably healthy person with a small income and a child to raise. 10% of my income is not a reasonable cost for out-of-pocket health care benefits, and with some of my crappy jobs it’s been more than that if benefits were offered at all. I’ve dealt with being a teen mom and I think I’ve done a good job, for the most part. I did what the political right wanted me to do, which is not have an abortion. Then what?? I was thrown to the wolves, as far as health care is concerned. Other than not having an adequate income to cover my health issues, what have I done that is irresponsible?? Not get married?? Let’s not open that can of worms, shall we?? Another topic for another time; let’s just say I’d be divorced by now. Further shame!! By not getting a better job?? I know people who haven’t been out there honestly believe that jobs are plentiful and abounding, but they’re not. “Just take any job you can get.” I’ve tended bar, sold lingerie, waited tables in a strip joint, done laundry, cleaned houses. Are these the “any job” to which you were referring, because they took me away from my young child, placed me in the hole for childcare expenses that I accrued during my working hours, did not pay my bills, and did not offer benefits. So how does ‘taking any job’ benefit me, or anyone other than the predatory guy who grabs my thigh and tries to lick me while I bring him drinks at the titty bar??

I know, I know. You’re a young, white guy and Ron Paul looks fabulous from where you’re sitting. Reproductive health issues are a “women’s issue,” and thereby not something you feel invested in. Dr. Paul will “force” providers to lower their costs. No indication of how, considering as of right now even low-income clinics can’t slide their scales low enough to fund treatment and stay in business. It’s a lovely proposal, but I think it’s one that most people want to believe they don’t or won’t have to think about. I do, and I have, and I believe the solution is far more complicated than the ‘haves’ are even remotely aware of. Shoot, it’s more complex that I’m aware of am I ‘have-not.’

People concentrate on issues that affect them; that’s a no-brainer (as they say). Reproductive health and health care benefits (in any form) affect me whether others feel like my individual uterus, or whether or not I have cancer and can afford treatment, is important or not. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind, but we all should be voting for our interests, not those of politicians or corporations or ideologies, and my interests are not necessarily those of privileged, white 20-year-old males who are more concerned with legalizing marijuana than the health of women and families.

And I say that without too much malice, because I’m in favor of legalizing it, too. But it’s another story for another time, again.

But when some random dude says I need to be responsible for myself when I have sex?? Thank you for your judgment, but to the best of my ability I already am.

Plan B: A Conundrum

I’ve been reading, yesterday and today, about the controversy over the decision to not allow women under seventeen unrestricted access to emergency contraception. I understand that it’s controversial; hell, I even understand why. But some of what people out there are saying is just plain silly and uninformed.

What I’m reading on Facebook and Twitter and in comments at the end of articles (which I hate reading because comments are usually posted by the most insane demographic of Western inhumanity), there is a disproportionate amount of worry over eleven-and-twelve-year-old girls having access to EC while largely ignoring the populace most likely to use it: fifteen-and-sixteen-year-olds. The fact of the matter is that I don’t know what would happen to younger adolescents if they had access to EC, but I’m going to guess not a whole helluva lot. (Stay tuned) Frankly, I think that overlooking the young women who can benefit from it in favor of younger kids who are less likely to is absurd and careless.

There’s a great deal of “where are the parents” discussion, which is understandable. As a ‘teen mom’ myself, I had access to all the information in the world and a mom who was willing to help me take responsibility for my reproductive health and I made the conscious choice to blow it off and ignore what I knew. I did not want to talk to my mom about my sex life and was too nervous about all the rest of the uncertainty. It seemed to put everyone off our lunch, so I tried to avoid the subject. I don’t have to tell you how that turned out: she’s fourteen, I’m thirty-two. Our birthdays are two weeks apart. I'll leave you to do the math.

There are a lot of folks out there who say that they would talk to their kids, or that they do, and so their kids would never need EC. I say that’s great that you talk to your kids. I talk to mine, too, and have been since she was uncomfortably young. However, you can’t put a chastity belt on your young’uns. At some point they are responsible for their own choices, and our well-intentioned teachings become whatever. Talking is not enough, and sometimes the choices young people make are bound to be shitty ones. Come on, now. We’ve all made them. I know plenty of smart women who got pregnant in their twenties and thirties by being totally irresponsible. Kids don’t have the corner on bad decision-making, but our society sure likes to treat them like they do. The fact of the matter is that some kids who have sex are going to have had crappy parents, and some are not, but to assume that all young girls who get pregnant are somehow lacking in parental support is such an overextending assumption. Almost any sexually active young woman can get pregnant. An unintended pregnancy does not make a young woman uninformed, or unsupported. “Where were her parents??” Perhaps they were allowing the girl some autonomy and the opportunity to make her own decisions in life?? Please. A young girl’s pregnancy is difficult enough without your judgment. But thank you.

There are people who are concerned about what EC could do to a child as young as eleven. I’m on board with this, and I think it’s safe to say that if a child that young needed EC every one of us would hope that she is getting the help and support that she obviously needs. But just because it’s available, does that mean young kids are going to buy it and take it out of curiosity?? Because I’ve heard it suggested. I’d think they’d be more likely to reach for the Dramamine or the No-Doz, both of which I see readily accessible on drug store and gas station shelves in my neighborhood for under $10. Plan B One Step, for example, is not cheap. That’s another thing about EC: it’s expensive. Even if the costs were to go down if it were available OTC, I cannot imagine that it would suddenly become so inexpensive that a young person would pay for it when there are so many more fun and less spendy drug things to play with on the store shelves. I know eleven-year-olds who have disposable access to money, but not only are they the exception they would all be more likely to blow their $100 wad on iTunes or Starbucks. Just an observation, but when my kid leaves the house with $100 and comes home four hours later, broke, she’s buzzed on Frappuccinos and carrying shopping bags from Forever 21. We all want kids to be safe.

Shoot, kids can buy acetaminophen. A twelve-year-old could buy it and kill themselves by taking the whole bottle. We don’t put that behind the pharmacy counter, even though people can very easily die from it. I don’t know about y’all, but I’d heard of Tylenol poisoning by the time I was twelve. I had friends who slammed diet pills and diuretics by then, and they’re still available for purchase by young people. I think some of us might be looking a bit too closely at one thing right now.

Another concern that I’ve been reading about is that child molesters might encourage girls to take EC after raping them. On one hand, of course that’s horrifying. I’m pretty damn sure we can agree on that. On the other, is that child’s not getting pregnant with a rape baby somehow a bad thing?? Rapists and child molesters are going to do what they do until you and I and law enforcement and government and spirituality and social responsibility and biology itself can somehow abolish rape and child molestation. If my own child were molested, I would damn skippy encourage her to take Plan B. When grown women I know have been raped, I’ve encouraged them to do so, as well. We live in a society where women are allowed to make these choices for ourselves. This right has been in dispute for much longer than I’ve been alive to document it, but still it’s ours. Young women should be no exception. Rapists use condoms to cover their tracks. I get that there is a measure of society that believes we should restrict the distribution of condoms to young people, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with rape. Without meandering too far from the subject matter, though, that neglects the fact that sex is biological and when young people’s bodies are becoming all grown-up-like that hormonal changes are going to make them think about, and sometimes have sex whether culture says no or not. But that’s another subject for another time. Blaming the availability of contraception for any form of rape does not excuse, forgive, or otherwise legitimize the act. As long as there are predators in our neighborhoods who sexually denigrate women and girls, they’re going to find ways to manipulate their victims and cover their tracks. In the case of condoms and EC, they could also be doing the people they attack a favor (for lack of a more suitably harrowing way of putting it) by not spreading an STI or getting a victim pregnant and forcing them to make a choice that wasn’t theirs to begin with.

One individual said “you don’t know what this drug does.” Yes, I do. I’ve taken it twice. Once when I went too long between Depo shots (I was engaged to be married at the time) and once after a tragic condom mishap followed by the realization that I’d missed my BC pill for two days. I have sex sometimes, and I do my best to be smart about it. As with any medication, side effects are different for different people. Women I know have had them. I haven’t. I’m grateful for the options, like EC, that I have, and I would not wish to take them away from another woman if she felt like she needed them, no matter how young. But I do know what the drug does. Please do not assume that a woman who supports EC does not.

May I throw in a moment of slut-shaming?? Because there does seem to be a great deal of the humiliation of women, especially young women, who have sex and don’t hide it nicely. Especially when they get pregnant. I think Juno said it best when she said “you don’t have the evidence under your sweater,” or something to that effect. This is a phenomenon men don’t experience. Assuming that a young woman who gets pregnant is a slut, regardless of how she became that way, is nothing new. There still seems to be a great deal of “you did this to yourself” out there, which absolves boys of their responsibility and puts girls squarely in the slut seat. This is insane and unjust and the attitude needs to stop. It’s not going to any time soon, I understand, but forcing a girl to be pregnant against her will, when she could have chosen otherwise on her own, is fucked up regardless of how she came into the state of being.

Anyway. I’m still going to continue to be of the school of thought that all people must be educated about sex. Abstinence -only education for young people has proven itself ineffective. Blocking the availability of EC to younger women does not block the need or desire for it, but I do see why people are concerned.

The bottom line, to me, is that if we’re going to regulate every single thing that makes society uncomfortable, like the sexuality of young people, we might as well not leave the house. Don’t fly on the airlines because of terrorism, don’t go to ballgames because you might get hit with something and die, and for fuck’s sake, do not take anything that wasn’t successfully sheltered behind the pharmacist’s counter.