The same goes for the other point apparently being made - I strongly suspect that any link between sexual activity before marriage and psychological problems is either coincidental or explained by some other variable(s) that influence both together (say, hmm, being at college might make you more likely to have sex due to the permissive co-ed environment, and also more likely to have problems, thanks to exam stress and lack of money).

Anyway, correlation doesn’t equal causation (All pop-psych authors should be made to repeat this 500 times).

For those who can’t see what the anonymous doctor is doing wrong, here’s another hypothetical example. What if it isn’t a student complaining of unhappiness with a specific relationship or set of relationships, and the doctor suggesting that they might end those same relationships (reasonable advice). What if instead you have a student come in and complain of depression, or insomnia (never mentioning their otherwise happy relationships until asked) and the doctor suggests that they should stop sleeping around? I’d say that’s certainly irresponsible moralising.

Self mutilation is also specifically mentioned - it should be pointed out that self harm is strongly related to being abused as a child. To tell someone suffering from self harm that they’re essentially a slut, and that it’s making them sick, when it’s actually fairly likely they’re an abuse survivor isn’t just irresponsible, it’s downright dangerous. Talk about making someone with a low sense of self worth feel even worse.

I posted a note at “Abyss2hope” blog but want to post here as well. I am assuming that the young people Dr. Grossman “treats” are recently out of high school and bring with them their earlier experiences. That said, the Journal of Adolescnet Health came out with a study recently which found:

“Mental health problems are associated
with early sexual activity, but these studies suggest that
sexual activity is a consequence not a cause of these mental
health problems [5– 8]. We know little about how the decision
to remain abstinent until marriage may promote personal
resilience or sexual function/dysfunction in adulthood.”

Dr. Grossman has an axe to grind and I find it irresponsible that she would promote her perspective as scientific research. It’s simply dangerous and, as Abyss2hope has repetedly pointed out, Dr. Grossman is nothing less than negligent in her work with these yougn women. I hope her patients take her to task on this.

Which brings me back to this from the WSJ OpEd:

As the author observes, surveys have found that “sexually active teenage girls were more than three times as likely to be depressed, and nearly three times as likely to have had a suicide attempt, than girls who were not sexually active.”

Since many so-called sexually active teenage girls have been raped it makes sense that the distress level in this group would be higher than in a group that excludes rape victims.

I can’t remember where I read it, but I believe the negative statistics go up the younger a girl becomes sexually active. But the younger a girl is when she becomes sexually active the higher the chances are that she has been the victim of rape or sexual abuse.

That really sucks that you had to go through that, that’s terrible- and it’s definitely worth considering that maybe these girls were raped and no one asked them about it- but at the same time it’s also possible that they were going through all kinds of other crap as well that also wasn’t considered.

I don’t think all of these girls were raped since there are many reasons for psychic distress. However, this blame it all on a woman’s sexual choices is especially harmful to rape and sexual abuse survivors. Many rapists and abusers have already projected responsibility for their actions onto their victims so this type of conclusion is harder for rape victims to shrug off as bullshit.

Frankly, I don’t think this doctor should ask if her patients have been raped unless she does nothing more in response to a positive response than give rape survivors a referral to someone who specializes in helping rape victims. Also a response of no to the question, “Have you been raped?” tells the asker nothing since many victims either have learned to clam up or the victim doesn’t use that specific label.

Abyss2hope- That really sucks that you had to go through that, that’s terrible- and it’s definitely worth considering that maybe these girls were raped and no one asked them about it- but at the same time it’s also possible that they were going through all kinds of other crap as well that also wasn’t considered. The problem is the logical flaws of the argument, ie:

These girls are depressed and also have sex, therefore they are depressed because they are having sex.

It’s cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation implies causation), which is a logical fallacy. In order for the study to have any relevence, the doctor would have to prove that having sex is the sole cause of their depression and/or general nuttiness, and also that all women who have sex are depressed and/or generally nutty.

Dr. Grossman’s study also fails the correlation vs. causation test: there’s no proof whatsoever that sexual activity causes the mental health issues; it is equally possible that being depressed or anxious causes people to engage in sex, or that there’s absolutely no connection whatsoever.

Of course, no conservative would DARE say that religion causes people anxiety…or the physical stress of athletics on people. (I have a knee problem caused by injuries playing football that will plague me most of my life…)

Can I borrow this line? When people judge my choice of celibacy, they’re never satisfied with my reasoning.

There’s absolutely no evidence that either this physician or the op-ed author consider rape to be a sexual choice on the part of the victim.

That’s the impact when they don’t consider rape at all in their analysis.

[Crittenden:] …the young women described in “Unprotected” have fallen victim to one of the few personal troubles that our caring professions refuse to treat or even acknowledge: They have been made miserable by their “sexual choices.”

Effect = young women’s emotional pain.
Cause = young women’s “sexual choices.”
It isn’t that the doctor and Crittenden say rape is a sexual choice, it’s that these women ignore rape or sexual abuse as possible causes for young women’s emotional pain. Once they do that they treat rape survivors as if their choices are the root of their distress. As a teenager who was treated in exactly this way, I know that this belief has a multiplying effect on the existing emotional pain.

It was bad enough trying to cope with being raped, but then I had to deal with the professionals I attempted to reach out to for help who “knew” that my “choice” to not stay a virgin was what caused my distress. Once they heard enough to impose their vision onto my experiences, they stopped listening and started informing me of their truths.

It was no wonder I began to think I was crazy.

(If you want to respond to me, you can do so in an open thread, or in the post about the moderation policies.)

QGrrl wrote:

If I were young and straight that would depress the fuck out of me. Literally.

Maybe it’s shallow of me to respond this way, but what a great line.

Great point about the article’s stunted conception of what female sexual autonomy might mean.

By linking women’s psychic distress and every other problem related to women’s sexual contact to women’s sexual choices that turns rape into a sexual choice and it lets men who rape, abuse or exploit say that the negative impact of their actions on the woman comes from her sexual choices, not his.

To be honest, I think this might be a bit of a stretch. Yes, the above does happen, but I’m not sure that it is relevant to the article.

What I find frustrating about the article, with its lack of focus on the male heterosexuality, is that it paints women’s sexual autonomy as the sum total of having multiple male partners. The author does not explore the dichotomy between female sexual autonomy and the socially constructed paradigm of male heterosexuality. Regardless of how a woman presents her own sexuality, or acts on it, this sexuality is continuously bounded by the outdated and sexist practices of the bulk of male hetersexuals. Having multiple partners does not guarantee sexual satisfaction; in fact it might only solidify the fact that men, regardless of women’s desires, still perform sex within the framework of a sexist double standard.

If I were young and straight that would depress the fuck out of me. Literally.

And the author does this where? I see where specific situations come up, but I don’t see where it’s said that this physician relates every incident of psychic distress or every problem related to their patients’ sexual contact to their sexual choices. What is being said is that they have seen instances where they think this is true, but there’s nothing to support the assertion that they think it’s true in all situations.

that turns rape into a sexual choice

How? There’s no connection here at all.

and it lets men who rape, abuse or exploit say that the negative impact of their actions on the woman comes from her sexual choices, not his.

There’s absolutely no evidence that either this physician or the op-ed author consider rape to be a sexual choice on the part of the victim.

Here’s her statement made in the National Review article:

Depending on the study, 40-80 percent of students “hook-up,” and by graduation, the average number of these nearly anonymous encounters is ten. Yet we wonder why so many young people suffer from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-abuse.

Really? What are my beliefs?

But the physician’s feelings are more than objective analysis. In cases where women had psychic distress with no known cause, the physician went ahead and filled in the blank with “her sexual choices” despite having no supporting evidence for doing so.

Well, it seems to me that this physician holds that they do know what the cause is. It seems to me that an objective cause for this kind of thing is not as readily demonstrated as the presence of an infectious disease or pregnancy. There’s going to be some subjectivity.

It seems to me that Ms. Crittenden and this physician want to preach to students who are female and/or gay who come in as patients. And the college isn’t allowing that. I agree with the college’s position since a physician can easily abuse the power of the doctor/patient relationship if that person mixes healthcare with pat moral judgments.

What may be preaching to you may be sound advice to someone else. Take for example the woman who was in a “friend with privileges” relationship who tells her physician that her friend seems to be quite satisified with his “privileges” and the state of their relationship, but she is not getting the friendship she needs out of it and that it bothers her a lot. Should the physician not be able to tell that woman, “You seem to be quite upset about this relationship. Perhaps this is a cause of your overall distress. If you are not satisfied with this relationship, you should consider either changing it or getting out of it.”? That doesn’t sound like a pat moral judgement to me. It sounds like common sense.

Now, the physician asserts that they do not feel free to offer such advice. That seems pretty questionable to me, and I’d be very interested to see if that’s actually true. But the physician involved is treating this woman, not the man in the relationship. The question at hand is whether improper constraints may or may not be present in the relationship between this doctor and his or her patients, not what choices any men involved may be making. It’s worth talking about those choices, but to emphasize them in this context is sidetracking the discussion.

The conclusions the anonymous author reaches are very silly, yes, but I’m not following what they have to do with rape or male heterosexual fantasies.

By linking women’s psychic distress and every other problem related to women’s sexual contact to women’s sexual choices that turns rape into a sexual choice and it lets men who rape, abuse or exploit say that the negative impact of their actions on the woman comes from her sexual choices, not his.

So do I. What’s that got to do with this article, or the book behind it? What evidence do you have that this doctor didn’t do just that?

Ron, I cannot believe you are defending this claptrap.

The fact that sexual choices can affect people’s mental state is, I should think, pretty clear. But what I’m focusing on is not whether the right thing for these patients to do is to follow the advice that this physician would like to give them. What I’m focusing on is that abyss2hope in my opinion is completely missing the focus of what this op-ed is telling us about this book - that the author says that he or she is seeing a number of women in their practice that in that author’s opinion are suffering mental distress due to the sexual choices that they feel they are being pressured into by society, and that the same society is pressuring this physician to not take the steps that they feel appropriate to treat that.

Whether or not this is true and whether or not the doctor should be free to deal with their patients in the manner that they apparently would like to are topics worthy of debate. But to assert on the basis of what’s stated in this op-ed that the book’s author therefore believes that men should not be held accountable for their choices and that female rape victims are complicit in their rape seems at the very least absurd to me, and that’s what I’m challenging.

Though I’m not really on board to be the guinea pig who reads this conservative cry to allow “religious” responsibility to enter college sexuality counseling (if readers of this book are to be believed), I’d be curious to know who is actually responsible for the omission - Crittenden or the author. But mostly, I shudder to think that a shrink at UCLA argues to counsel women to act like ladies and men to use condoms when having sex with the ones who don’t, though she does indicate that it’ll be drug users and folks who have anal sex who get HIV - so maybe she wouldn’t even go as far as to suggest using a rubber.

–Rebecca, who recently had to admit to a “friend with benefits”: I’m sorry, I don’t consider you my friend. (Hard-wired badly, I should expect)

Cardiologists hound patients about fatty diets and insufficient exercise. Pediatricians encourage healthy snacks, helmets and discussion of drugs and alcohol. Everyone condemns smoking and tanning beds.

Yes, and since college kids don’t eat pizza three times a day, always go the gym right after biology class, never experiment with new and dangerous drugs much less smoke or drink, and are definitely not walking around bright orange in the middle of winter, obviously the problem here is that doctors are not allowed to tell women that they are too slutty.

The conclusions the anonymous author reaches are very silly, yes, but I’m not following what they have to do with rape or male heterosexual fantasies.