Did you have sex as a teen? Well, according to a new book, that might be the reason you’re so messed up when it comes to relationships. Your brain may have been damaged!
That’s what Dr. Freda Bush and Dr. Joe McIlhaney, the authors of Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children, would like us to believe, according to a recent CanWest News Service story:
“When we are involved in sexual relations, the brain is actually flooded with neurochemicals that cause us to attach to each other, emotional bonding and also a powerful desire to repeat the behaviour,” says Bush in a telephone interview from her home in Jackson, Miss.
“These chemicals can imprint the brain and can cause addictive behaviour with lifelong consequences.”
But wait! It gets worse:
Both sexes also experience a dopamine rush — dopamine is a hormone that makes you feel good and rewards you for exciting behaviour.
Bush says that when two people are in a committed relationship, that addictive hormone is a good thing, as it ensures a strong union.
However, for young people whose brains are susceptible to pattern-forming behaviours, that may set them up for a lifetime of seeking the thrill and reward from sex, and make it hard for them to attach themselves long-term to a partner later in life.
And worse still:
Bush and McIlhaney also point to research which shows that the younger a person has sex, the more partners he or she is likely to have.
“Because they are imprinted so early with the sexual behaviour and because of the multiple partners, they can mould or gel the brain to eventually accept that pattern as normal,” says Bush. “And when they are ready to have a long-term relationship, it interferes with their ability to develop it, because those neurological circuits have been weakened in the ability to attach, and the dopamine rush rewarding you for the behaviour has taken precedence.”
The good doctors, who incidently worked on some of Bush II’s abstinence-only initiatives, (surprise, surprise) recommend no sexual activity until one’s mid-twenties (and a committed relationship), certainly a realistic, not to mention appealing, option for most people. Good luck.
Over at Bahamas Blog, Dr. Marty Klein offers a detailed indictment of the book’s claims. Check it out while you think about what you’ve done.
Tagged as:
creepy,
feelings,
Health,
windbags
Earlier this week, Halifax’s Chronicle Herald newspaper ran a story about Mount St. Vincent University deciding to scrap its undergraduate women’s studies program. Reading the article, I thought about a few different ways I could discuss the matter here at Confabulous. There is the “ways to defend the importance of women’s studies” angle. There is the “why is MSVU falling into the trap of building new buildings while axing programs?” angle (something familiar to me as an alumna of York University). And there is the whiny “other, far more stupid programs get funded all the time!” angle.
But then I got a look at the comments section at the Chronicle Herald and discovered how little the discussion about women’s studies has moved in the decade or so since I was enrolled as an undergrad. Herewith, the three-pronged anatomy of your standard “women’s studies sucks” discussion:
The top commenter writes, “What exactly does a BA in Womens studies qualify one to do? About as much as basket weaving 101 does!” Hyuk, hyuk! Good one! That covers the “women’s studies is useless argument” in one slam dunk.
Number two writes, “a BA in womens studies qualifies you to enter what has become a major industry in canada. that industry is making men the pigs they are pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay,etc,etc,etc.” That sums up the “men are unjustly persecuted by the women’s movement/women’s studies,” position [note: it is important to conflate the two when making this argument]. To point out how unfair the women’s movement is, he writes, “there are gyms in this and other cities that WILL NOT allow men to attend.” Damn those women’s only gyms, those bastions of female chauvinism!
Then there is my all-time favourite: “Womens Studys.. what a joke of a program. Where is Mens Studys, or are we too simple?” Yes, the tidy “what about men’s studies [er, sorry, studys]?” question. As my friend R. used to say back in the day, “If you’re looking for men’s studies, go to the campus radio station.”
Yes, the triptych of anti-women’s studies sentiment remains the same. And yet, the blessing of this type of thinking is that it really answers its own question. In other words, as another commenter at the Chronicle Herald wrote, the three fellas who wrote these comments are precisely “the REAL reason why we need Women’s Studies programs.” Kinda sums it up, eh?
What is your favourite way of responding to windbaggery? Let us know!
Tagged as:
windbags,
women's studies
Confabulous badges!
