Wait, what was the question again?

Controversies involving Rush Limbaugh are as simple as they are boring: a guy who gets paid to say mean and offensive things says something mean and offensive, resulting in people being offended. These incidents are not worth the attention they receive, but 24-hour cable news being what it is, we all have to hear about it.

More interesting (to me, at least) is the line of reasoning used in his and other conservative's arguments.  For example, as Rachel Maddow ably explains, Limbaugh's statements suggest a profound ignorance about the workings of hormonal contraception.

Beyond the medical issue, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the policy question at hand.  Bill O'Reilly, while eschewing Limbaugh's vitriol, questions whether he personally, or society more broadly, should have to pay for people's sexual activities:

The question O'Reilly seems to be addressing is whether taxpayers should have to pay for birth control coverage. I think this is an interesting question and one that is worthy of debate. But it is simply not the question that is being addressed here. We are not discussing public provision of contraception, or any other healthcare, for that matter. The question here is whether private insurance companies should be required to cover hormonal contraception as part of their insurance packages. Thus, it is not a question of public spending, but rather one of regulation.

So if the concern is the cost of providing contraception, then this would reflect higher insurance premiums, not greater public spending. Does covering contraception increase insurance premiums? It doesn't seem like it. A review of published evidence by the Guttmacher Institute found that, "contraceptive coverage does not raise insurance premiums and that employers providing such coverage can, in fact, save money by avoiding costs associated with unintended pregnancy." Basically the cost of providing contraception is offset by the forgone cost of pre-natal care and delivery services. So Mr. O'Reilly's and Mr. Limbaugh's fears should be allayed.

With all the charged language and demagoguery, we seem to have lost sight of the topic. Instead, we have commentators denouncing non-existing policies and their imaginary consequences. Sure makes for good ratings, though.

More meat less sex?

A sexy PETA ad featuring scantily-clad models fondling crudites was banned from the Super Bowl by NBC:

'Veggie Love': PETA's Banned Super Bowl Ad

While this may seem like a defeat for pro-vegetarian groups, Freakonomics suspects that, at $30 million for a 30-second Super Bowl ad spot, PETA got exactly what it wanted:

"Maybe G.M. should try the same ad strategy as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): get your commercial banned from the Super Bowl. PETA made a sexually explicit commercial that NBC wasn’t comfortable with — one that, just maybe, PETA knew NBC wouldn’t be comfortable with? — and got lots of press without having to actually run the ad."

But what about PETA's central claim, that vegetarians have better sex? New York Magazine looks at some of the evidence:

"Beyond the overenthusiastic veggie love and flagrant sexism in the banned PETA Super Bowl ad, we were also dubious of the notion that vegetarians have better sex. Slate allays our fears with facts: “Vegetarian diets tend to correlate with higher rates of zinc deficiency, which is closely associated with lower testosterone levels and depressed sex drives. Vegetarian women are also more likely to develop amenorrhea (loss of periods), a condition that's usually accompanied by low testosterone, vaginal dryness, and poor libido.” Not so sexy. The cornerstone of PETA’s argument is that eating meat makes you “fat, sick,” and therefore “boring in bed.” There’s some truth to vegetarians weighing less, on average, but the “journal Obstetrics & Gynecology shows that overweight women might, in fact, be slightly more [sexually] active,” Slate notes. If PETA is claiming that vegetarians make better sex partners because they're hotter than meat-eaters, we’d like to point out that Victoria's Secret models like Gisele enjoy a little meat. According to Churrascaria waiter Marcio Lorenzi, they're partial to chicken hearts."

I guess that's one theory we can put to bed.

Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies

As promised, here are the links to the Harvard study on the risks faced by minors on the internet. The executive summary is here and the full study is here.

Page 75 of the full study PDF discusses the evidence regarding sexual solicitation online.

Safer than we thought

As I've written recently, many parents and child advocates view social networking sites as online swamps full of lurking sexual predators, kind of like this:



But a new study from researchers at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society suggests that may be more the product of media hype and parental fears than reality. According to the New York Times (who received a draft version of the report due out tomorrow*):

"The report criticized previous findings that one in five or one in seven minors are sexually propositioned online, saying that in a strong majority of those situations, a child’s peers are responsible for the proposition, which typically amounts to an act of harassment or teasing."

Further, the authors of the study note that in most cases of online sexual predation, "teenagers are typically willing participants and are at risk in other ways (with poor home environments, depression or substance abuse, for example)."

It's doubtful that a study like this will have much impact in the psyche of parents. The dangers of online behavior have been greatly exaggerated for years and empirical evidence is usually overwhelmed by an anecdote or 10 minutes of "To Catch a Predator". But the research supports the conclusion that while the internet provides a new medium for social interaction, people are still people. As John Cardillo--chief executive of Sentinel Tech Holding, which maintains a sex offender database and was a member of the task force--is quoted saying:

“Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are comprised mostly of good people who are there for the right reasons.”

*I'll be sure to post the link as soon as the study is available online.

This just in: 18 year olds talk about sex!

If you want to frighten parents and educators, mention "MySpace". The social networking site has become public enemy number one in the fight against teenage vice. Now, even the medical community is getting involved. According to a study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, "54 percent of teens talk about behaviors such as sex, alcohol use, and violence on the social networking giant MySpace".

Actually, that quote is a bit misleading. A few paragraphs down, we find out:

The study looked at MySpace profiles of 500 people who identified themselves as 18-year-old males and females in the United States. References to risky behaviors included both words and photos, the authors said.

So this means that 54% of 18-year-olds on MySpace reference sex or drugs (there's no mention of "rock-n-roll" in the study) in their profiles. Let's put aside for a moment the fact that 18-year-olds are legal adults. Studies of the sexual behavior of Ameircan teens reveal that 58% of 18-year-olds in this country have had sex. If you believe these statistics, MySpace users are actually less likely to have sex than the general population.

You may be wondering why anyone would be interested in this (I know I was). Accodring to one of the authors:

Even if teens have not actually engaged in risky behaviors but merely brag about them online, this can still affect their future behavior, said study co-author Dr. Dimitri Christakis, professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Hospital.

Those who lie about the behaviors to show off may receive positive feedback from others -- comments such as "that's great" or "I do the same thing" -- that encourage them to actually try out the behaviors, he said.

So the danger here is not MySpace, per se, but rather peer pressure--pressure that results from essentially any contact with peers.  That means that if MySpace is dangerous, then so are cell phones, or any other communication device.  If MySpace is dangerous, so is talking.

Interestingly, one of the researchers makes this point, though it is buried in the article:

"It's really not that MySpace is bad or good. I think the lesson is that it's a tool, and how you use it determines the kinds of outcome you're going to get," Moreno said.

Technology changes, but people typically stay the same.  Teenagers--in this case, young adults--think about, and talk about, sex.  It's easier to see that now that social networking sites have gained popularity.  But just because it's more apparent, doesn't mean it's new.