Auntie Em! It's Not Just About Kansas Anymore

Since when did sex between two consenting teens become “sexual abuse”?

By Emily Amick, Wellesley College
Mar 14th, 2006

Remember when Texas State Representative Al Edwards proposed legislation that would fine high schools whose cheerleaders performed sexually suggestive moves? According to Edwards, cheerleaders — young women who were once considered (in the era of knee-length cheer skirts) to be the ideal of moral character and womanhood — were degrading themselves, serving as veritable Rossetti’s damsels. Though the legislation never passed, he served as one man in a long line of leaders who have decided it is their moral duty to protect young women from sexuality and having to make their own decisions.

Kansas Attorney General (and moral crusader) Phill Kline has now taken this same concept to a new level by, as he puts it, coming to the supposed “aid” of sexually active girls. In a nod to the bygone era of the 1950s, Kansas, along with almost a dozen other states, has laws on the books making underage sex a crime. Kline recently announced that he will interpret that law to mean that any touching of a teen “with the intent to arouse” should constitute “sexual abuse,” even when both people involved are consenting teenagers. His interpretation of a law requiring that child abuse be reported is so broad it could force a therapist to violate confidentiality standards to report that her 15-year-old client disclosed that she “hooked up” with (or shall we say “abused”) her 15-year-old boyfriend. On behalf of a group of health-care providers and counseling professionals, the Center for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging Kline’s interpretation of the child-abuse reporting law, arguing that it violates teenagers’ right to privacy and, moreover, would scare them away from seeking health care and counseling.

While many adults would prefer for adolescents to wait to engage in sexual activity until they are “more mature,” we also must acknowledge the reality: Teens will explore their sexuality regardless of what rules and restrictions are imposed upon them. Kline’s interpretation not only criminalizes this natural exploration but does it in a manner condemning the girls who do so. I have to wonder, who appointed him grand vizier of teen sex?

The way I see it, this is not about saving specific victims of abuse; it’s about putting an end to sex between young people. Also, as this draconian tale unfolds in Kansas, it seems that teenage girls and boys are not being treated equally when it comes to deciding who should have sexual agency, with a disproportionate emphasis on controlling young women. For instance, a child psychiatrist testified for Kline that society ought to limit teenage girls’ access to birth-control pills but shouldn’t limit boys’ access to condoms.

In the court case, University of Michigan gynecologist Elizabeth Shadigian testified that Kansas girls need this protection because even when they think they are engaging in voluntary sex, they are, in fact, mistaken. Shadigian said, “In the present-day situation, with the state of affairs as it is, it is not a voluntary situation with all the injustices in the power differential between men and women.”

Kline’s campaign serves as a telling example of today’s right-wing politics. As Katha Pollitt eloquently wrote, “As they flex their political muscle, right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear.”

Kline’s position in this case is similar to the one he’s taken in demanding to see abortion-clinic records as part of a comprehensive plan to supposedly “protect” children from sexual abuse. The pre-Kline-interpreted law already says a professional who suspects any form of child abuse must report it. What more does Kline want? What is it about young women’s sexuality that is so insidious, so catastrophic for the American way of life that an attorney general would dedicate so much time and effort to repressing it?

By his actions, Kline is perpetuating an archaic stereotype we ought to have left behind long ago — specifically, that girls must be protected from anything resembling sexual misconduct, but boys, of course, will be boys! The 2003 FDA rejection of over-the-counter Plan B serves as an excellent example of this flagrant double standard. In his letter announcing the rejection, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Steven Galson claimed there was not adequate data showing exactly how adolescent women would actually use the drug. This conclusion came despite a 23-4 vote in favor of the drug and a mountain of persuasive evidence. According to Dr. James Trussell, a member of the voting committee, six studies examined whether teens as young as 15 would increase their “risky” behavior if they knew they had a backup emergency contraceptive option and none of the studies answered that question in the affirmative. Apparently, these benevolent authority figures care so much about young women that they will go against scientific evidence to save us from our own indiscretions.

The Mustapha Monds of our culture are even prepared to forgo the possible prevention of thousands of deaths to “protect” young women from sex. Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is the leading cause of cervical cancer, but Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council claims that, “Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex.” So, despite the fact that worldwide deaths from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million deaths a year by 2050, Maher objects to the promotion of this soon-to-be-approved vaccine because she fears it will be the key that unlocks the chastity belts of thousands of young women across the country.

Controlling one’s own sexual agency represents the ability to overcome the main tool men have used to subordinate women throughout the ages. When young women are no longer seen purely as recipients of affection but actors in their story — when we are able to say yes or no to kissing, sex or pregnancy, when women are in full control of their futures — the system of male power fails. Protecting young people from abuse is critical for the future of our country, but doing so in a way that intentionally or unintentionally subordinates the female sex is detrimental to our cause.

We should not have to lower ourselves to the status of Rossetti’s damsel in this modern age. Young women deserve the same respect, treatment and opportunities as young men. This will never happen until we are seen as equals in the eyes of adults.

Illustration: Matt Bors