Nov 10, 2009, 05:02AM

"Give Up" These Outdated Stereotypes

Baltimore is full of anti-sex billboards that propogate the troubling notion that women are the only ones standing between themselves and pregnancy or HIV.

2159026524 1646fd0f80.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

"I don't give it up, and I'm not giving in," read the billboard from the side of the overpass. As my Bolt Bus rolled into Maryland early last Saturday morning, its passengers were greeted by a host of billboards like this one, on which the large block writing was accompanied by the earnest face of a young Latina woman. Good morning Baltimore.

As the bus drove further into the city, I saw similar billboards ("Sex can wait; your future can't"), as well as more from the "I don't give it up" campaign. Each of these alternate versions featured the same message next to a different face, and by the time we reached Penn Station, I'd seen "I don't give it up" billboards representing a range of ethnicities. But across the board, one thing was consistent: the gender of those faces.

This campaign, which appears to be the work of a Baltimore non-profit organization called Campaign for Our Children, was no doubt designed with the best of intentions. Baltimore's AIDS diagnosis rate is the second highest in the nation, with 16, 000 city residents living with HIV or AIDS. In the past several years, Baltimore's teen birth rate has risen to almost double that of the rest of the state. Given this, efforts to prevent new HIV infections and teen pregnancy by delaying or preventing teen sexual activity are entirely necessary. But the "I don't give it up" campaign, which is aimed exclusively at young women, makes the common and potentially dangerous mistake of depicting women as sexual gatekeepers.

The idea of women as gatekeepers, capable of and responsible for keeping men's sexual impulses under control-by not dressing sexily or flirting too much or "giving in" as the billboard says-is far from new. It has its roots in the longstanding belief that women neither want nor particularly enjoy sex, that men are mindless sexual animals who will go to any lengths to get some. These concepts don't enjoy a great deal of basis in fact, of course, but that hasn't stopped them from shaping the way we think about gender and sex for centuries.

The gatekeeper model of sexuality positions women as the designated drivers of sex. Undistracted by lust, women are meant to be sensible and responsible enough to know when to draw the line, and to defend that line when men inevitably try to cross it. In this version of sexuality, women are taught that men will always want to have sex with us, and that they will do anything to get it. Our job as gatekeepers is to either "let" a man have sex with us, or to stop him from "going too far."

Of course, in the real world, women have sexual desires and men have self control. And in the real world, designating women as sexual gatekeepers can have dangerous consequences. Take, for example, the most common form of stranger-rape prevention, which is to warn women not to walk alone at night and to always go out drinking with a "buddy." Women are taught that as gatekeepers, it's our responsibility to ensure that we never put ourselves in the situation where a sexual assault might occur. We are taught that it's our responsibility to avoid those situations because men-those aggressive and sexually insatiable beasts-are unable to curb their desire for sex, even in the absence of consent. It rarely occurs to us that while it's crucial to teach women to be alert, aware and assertive about their personal safety, the only foolproof way to prevent sexual assault to teach men not to sexually assault people.

Similarly, the only effective and ethical way to delay teen sexual activity is to make both men and women responsible for their sexual actions. The language of the billboard plays right into the centuries-old idea of women as sexless creatures charged with keeping men in line. In this model of sexual interaction, sex is a transaction, something a woman gives to a man, rather than a mutually consensual and enjoyable exchange. And while some young women doubtlessly feel pressured to have sex that they don't enjoy, there's nothing in this model that allows for the possibility that women want and enjoy sex. Nor does this vision of sex allow for the possibility that men are capable of approaching sex sensibly and ethically. The result is that when young women choose to have sex, they feel a guilt and shame that young men aren't saddled with. If women are solely responsible for preventing or delaying sex, then having sex represents a failure on their part. But for men-those unthinking, unethical sexual aggressors-having sex simply represents their fulfillment of our very low expectations of them.

Campaigns like the "don't give it up" one are dangerously misguided. It's not acceptable to teach women to be sexual gatekeepers while accepting the inevitability that "boys will be boys." We need to equip all young people to take control of, and responsibility for, their own sexual actions. Young men need to learn to listen when a woman says "no," and young women need to know that, sometimes, there's nothing wrong with saying "yes." Most importantly, we need to teach young people that sex isn't a zero-sum transaction that one person gives to another, but rather something far more complex requiring consent and communication and cooperation.

  • Good points all around. But you know what I never got: What if sex is your future? Huh? Answer me that billboard. Plenty of young women (AND MEN. Don't get me wrong. Men too) find fulfilling careers as models, escorts, prostitutes, porn stars, junkie whores, as well as Hooters waitresses and Chippendales dancers. Shouldn't these people be getting started earlier? They can't afford to wait until they're 16 or 17 or 18. Do you know how far below the curve they'll be? These are not easy fields to get into and there's tons of degrading things that have to be learned before you can really have a strong Prior Experience section on that resume.

    Responses to this comment
  • Hilarious response to a very, very turgid and moralizing article.

    Responses to this comment
  • Turgid and moralizing? Is the assertion that both men and women are responsible for their sexual behavior turgid or moralizing? If anything, Angyal doesn't go far enough in criticizing these ads - the exclusive emphasis on women overshadows the fact that this campaign is preaching abstinence, which simply doesn't work.

  • Jesus Christ! Did you take your piety vitamins today too? No, teaching abstinence is dumb in my opinion, and somewhat offensive. My point is that, week after week, Chloe Angyal, who is a fine writer, chooses to lecture readers. If this was breaking information, fine; but it's not.

    Responses to this comment
  • Question for the author: would the billboard campaign be less dangerous, in your opinion, if half of them were directed at men? (i.e. "Dudes: Child Support SUUUUUUCKS") Also, are billboard campaigns like this even effective?

    Responses to this comment
  • those billboards annoy the shit out of me too. this was so nice to read, I'm glad someone dislikes them as much as me.

    Responses to this comment
  • HA. A good point. And no, I don't think these billboards are effective in achieving anything other than awkward moments at stoplights, when you're sitting in the car with, say, your father, and "SEX CAN WAIT, YOUR FUTURE CAN'T" looming overhead. Perhaps some people take the message to heart, but in my opinion they just seem funny and a little irritating.

    Responses to this comment
  • It's obvious, I'd hope, that these billboards are dumb and ineffective. I like billboards, but not these kind. Chloe, why don't you next go after all the drug ads on tv. Like the Viagra ones, that clog up sports programming, that show the "little woman" quietly smiling in the background while her man is getting juiced up.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't think the abstinence-only part of this campaign overshadows Chloe's point, Ari. The general tone of anything related to unintended pregnancies (as well as sexual assault) is completely centered on the female's role in the matter. This particular campaign is another small brick in the wall dividing women from men in terms of who takes responsibility for anything related to sex.

    Responses to this comment
  • reading about this ad campaign gives me the same sick feeling that was formerly reserved for DARE stickers. DARE overkill eventually made the stickers invisible and soon we'll go right past these, too. men can't be "taught" not to sexually assault people unless you're willing to follow them around with a taser for the rest of your life. we have lost the sense of community that leads to empathy and respect. thus, as a society we have none. we don't value people generally unless they represent something else to us, or we see them as a means to an end. most are strangers or acquaintances. the people we call friends are often disposable and transient. neighborhoods and families have been gradually blown to hell since the '50s. few of us really know how to think for ourselves since we've been spending more and more time staring at screens in that same period. so in the end we feel disconnected and believe that bad actions, like a bad movie, can be walked away from. we got some work to do.

    Responses to this comment
  • Ah yes, the 50s: The decade when no one was sexually assaulted, and women had it just fine.

  • Ah, yes, 2009, Zach Kaufmann the feminist, who recently wrote about his "PMS-ing ex-girlfriend." http://www.splicetoday.com/writing/way-out-west

    Responses to this comment
  • thanks, alison. since i'm new around here, you've done what i couldn't, and the economy is elegant. calling out hypocrisy is certainly one way to mute snark.

    Responses to this comment
  • Who said I was a feminist? I hate women.

  • Obviously.

    Responses to this comment
  • The most dangerous thing about these campaings is that they don't deal with the fact that a lot, if not most, women out there, WANT TO HAVE SEX. Why should women have to give up sexual pleasure and, even worse, why should they be in relationships without the physical intimacy of sexual relations, when there are efective ways out there for preventing pregnancy and STDs?! The message is clear: ''Don't have sex. If you do, then do at your own risk of getting pregnant or getting sick, because we don't care for your physical integrity and personal freedom, you slut!''

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment