2021年7月28日 星期三

‘Sex Talks’ Should Start Earlier Than You Think

Some parents feel awkward and reluctant to discuss bodies, consent and sexuality; their kids pay the price.

'Sex Talks' Should Start Earlier Than You Think

By Melinda Wenner Moyer

Loris Lora

When a friend of mine took her kids to the pediatrician's office a few weeks ago, her 7-year-old daughter noticed a birth-control poster and asked her about it. Soon after, her 4-year-old son began peppering her with sex questions too: "But Mom, why would a penis ever go into a vagina? Did Dad put his penis into your vagina?"

Needless to say, my friend will not forget this particular doctor's trip. But that conversation was not nearly as memorable as the one that transpired a few hours later at the playground, when her 4-year-old ran into a friend. Suddenly, her son yelled something to the effect of: "Did his dad put his penis in his mom before he was born, too?!"

Talking to kids about sex can be awkward and, as my friend's story illustrates, also have embarrassing consequences. Nevertheless, we need to be having these conversations with our kids, early and often. "As soon as children start talking, we should be talking to them about their bodies, and about boundaries and about consent," said Eva Goldfarb, a sex educator and professor of public health at Montclair State University in New Jersey.

Yet many parents are not having those conversations.

For their 2020 book, "Sexual Citizens," Princeton University sociologist Shamus Khan and Columbia University sociomedical scientist Jennifer Hirsch interviewed more than 150 Columbia students about the conversations they had — or shall I say, didn't have? — about sex with their parents. According to the students, discussions at home about sex were few and far between, and what little information they received usually came from their mothers rather than their fathers. When researchers surveyed U.S. adolescents as part of a study published in 2019, 63 percent of the teen boys reported that their parents had never talked with them about contraception, and 44 percent of the teen girls said the same.

Sometimes, parents talk so abstractly about sex that their kids do not understand what they're trying to communicate. "Parents are more likely to report that they talked with their adolescent about sex-ed topics than adolescents are to say that parents talked to them," said Laura Lindberg, a principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that works to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights. "We always need to be concerned about the gap between what parents think they're saying and what their kids hear."

ADVERTISEMENT

You can't assume that your kids will learn about sex in school, either. According to Guttmacher Institute data, 20 states do not require that sex education be taught in school at all, and of those that do, only 18 states require that the information be medically accurate. Just nine states teach students about the importance of consent. When the New York American Civil Liberties Union evaluated New York's sex education curriculum in 2012, the organization found that one school district described the penis as a "sperm gun" and the vagina as "penis fits in here."

If you're nervous about talking to your kids about sex, consider that the issue may be broader than you think — it encompasses relationships, body parts, boundaries, respect, privacy and consent. "Too often parents approach talking about sex with their kids as a one-time only, birds-and-the-bees type lecture, as opposed to an ongoing conversation throughout their child's development," Dr. Lindberg said.

A good place to start talking about sex is by using the correct anatomical names for body parts. When we use euphemisms, we send the message to our children that these parts of their bodies are shameful or taboo, and that they shouldn't come to us with questions about them. We need to have clear conversations about what to do if someone touches them in a way they don't want. You can use books or videos to introduce these topics to your kids if you're not sure how; Dr. Lindberg recommended books by Robie Harris, which are tailored to kids' ages, as well as the free videos created by the organization Amaze.org.

Parents of preteens and teens might also ensure that kids get time alone with their doctors so they can ask confidential questions, Dr. Hirsch said. A study published in July found that fewer than one-third of teens have had conversations with their doctors about sex, perhaps because they have not been given the opportunity.

ADVERTISEMENT

To instill an understanding of consent and body autonomy, we should also let our kids make their own decisions about who they touch (and are touched by). Avoid instructing children to give their friends hugs at the end of each play date, for example, and make sure they understand that they don't have to be embraced if they don't want to be, said Emily Rothman, a community health scientist at the Boston University School of Public Health.

It's also wise to talk to kids about pornography from a young age — even as young as kindergarten, Dr. Rothman suggested. You can frame these early discussions as being more about nakedness than about sex, though. "You can say, 'Sometimes grown-ups like to look at naked photos or movies of other grown-ups, and they do it because it's fun for them and makes them feel good, but we don't think it's that good for kids' brains,'" she said. When kids start chatting with friends over digital devices, we should also make clear that it's never a good idea to send naked pictures to others, that this is called sexting, and that it can get kids in lots of trouble.

This all said, parents shouldn't only talk about sex in a negative way, either. It's important that our kids understand that sex can be a joyful and important part of adult life, and that it's OK for them to get pleasure from their bodies. Parents might worry that framing sex in a positive way — or talking about sex at all — will make it more likely that their kids will start doing it, but the opposite is, in fact, true.

A 2015 study reported that when parents introduce their kids to the issue of sex with a stern, scare-mongering lecture, their kids are more likely to have sex during the teen years. When parents have more supportive and receptive conversations with their kids about sex, on the other hand, those kids are less likely to take sexual risks. And in a 2012 nationwide survey, 87 percent of teens said that it would be easier for them to postpone sexual activity and avoid pregnancy if they were able to have open and honest conversations with their parents about sex.

ADVERTISEMENT

When we talk to our kids about these important but complex issues, we share our values and our wisdom, which allows them to make better choices. And if they choose to yell out "penis!" on the playground, it's not the end of the world.

Melinda Wenner Moyer is a science journalist and the author of "How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes."

Want More on Talking to Kids About Sex?

  • Anastasia Higginbotham illustrated the first sex talk for parents of little kids.
  • Carrie Melago made clear that "the sex talk" is really a series of conversations.
  • Peggy Orenstein argued that if you ignore porn, you aren't teaching sex education.
  • Shani Zoldan-Verschleiser urged parents to give their children the tools to recognize sexual abuse.
  • Shane O'Neill remembered being trapped in the car with his dad for an awkward birds-and-bees conversation.

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

I remember to bring snacks for my toddler to eat on the car ride home from day care, perfectly timed so that he is content when arriving home and not hangry for dinner right away. — Jenny Lee Northey, Kingston, Ontario

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年7月27日 星期二

On Tech: An obsession with secrets

Tech companies throw around nondisclosure agreements like confetti, but they can hurt the rest of us.

An obsession with secrets

Tech companies throw around nondisclosure agreements like confetti, but they can hurt the rest of us.

Gianluca Alla

Before visitors set foot inside many tech company offices, they must sign a (digital) promise not to blab about what they overhear or see there. Religious leaders in the United States entered into legally binding agreements not to talk in detail about their online worship collaboration with Facebook. And Amazon demanded that testers of a revealing body-scanning technology not reveal anything about the experience.

Nondisclosure agreements like these have become a fixture for many influential people and institutions that want to keep secrets, sometimes for understandable reasons and other times for horrifying ones. NDAs and similar legal agreements have been used to cover up sexual abuse and harassment and discrimination at work.

NDAs are definitely not confined to the tech industry. But the power of large technology companies and the popularity of their products make their attempts at enforced secrecy particularly dangerous because of the ways NDAs keep the public from fully understanding how these companies shape the world.

The use of NDAs, including in trivial or routine circumstances like visiting a tech office, is ironic in an industry that praises openness and transparency. Facebook says it values free expression, but it might stop you from talking about the grapes that you ate at the company cafeteria.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yes, there are often good reasons for people and companies to demand confidentiality or try to prevent competitors from learning their best ideas. And because many people, including journalists, are eager to know about potential tech products or projects, there may be a higher risk of stuff leaking out of those companies.

But it's also easy to find fault in the willingness of many technology companies to throw around NDAs like confetti, in both silly and unsettling ways. Ifeoma Ozoma, the former Pinterest public policy executive, is among those pressing to ban NDAs that limit people who experienced workplace discrimination from speaking publicly about their experiences. Some laws restrict NDAs if they keep sexual misconduct or dangerous products a secret. (The people leading the charge against abusive NDAs or other restrictive workplace legal agreements are often women or Black tech workers like Ozoma.)

If tech workers hadn't risked breaking NDAs at their companies, the public might have never learned about fraud at the blood testing company Theranos, the emotional and physical health risks faced by those who review Facebook posts containing violence and sex, and details of Russian online propaganda to create voter chaos in the United States.

"The vast reach of these companies is what makes their use of exploitative agreements the biggest issue," Ozoma told me in an email. "Companies based in California are exporting overly restrictive, silencing agreements to every corner of the world. And they're doing all of this while claiming to give a damn about speech rights and free expression."

ADVERTISEMENT

It might hurt other customers when Airbnb makes customers sign NDAs if they encounter bedbugs at rented homes, or when nondisclosure provisions limit customers from complaining publicly about their experiences with teeth aligners. And is it fair for Amazon and other companies to require elected officials to sign nondisclosure agreements about projects that use taxpayer dollars?

The requirement to sign NDAs before entering tech companies stunned me when I first encountered it. It feels like an unnecessary and trivial exercise of power. (Another question: Are these agreements even enforceable?)

Lots of sensitive details are discussed inside investment banks, law firms, news organizations and hospitals, and as far as I know they don't have nondisclosure agreements for everyone who walks through the doors. Instead, employees tend to be careful not to discuss secrets where outsiders might hear them.

Again, NDAs aren't unique to technology. The Trump White House used them. Some celebrities apparently require NDAs for friends or romantic partners. My colleagues reported last year that many companies require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to receive severance packages.

ADVERTISEMENT

Companies and people have legitimate reasons to want to keep many of their secrets, but they could choose other legal means to do so, including confidentiality provisions, which are more limited in scope. When powerful and trendsetting tech companies use NDAs for everything and anything, it often protects them at the expense of the rest of us.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

TIP OF THE WEEK

When to quit your fancy headphones

Are your cord-free headphones way more frustrating than magical? Brian X. Chen, the consumer tech columnist for The New York Times, is here to share your {SCREAMS} and advise us when to give up:

Wireless earphones are great. They let you move around freely, are easier to put away than wired earphones and have decent sound quality. Recently, however, I called it quits on wireless earbuds for one type of use: video calls on a computer.

For more than a year of remote work, my Apple AirPods were unreliable for video calls on my desktop. Occasionally, the AirPods would vanish from the list of available Bluetooth devices on my Mac, forcing me to reset my earbuds. Other times, I wasn't able to choose the wireless earphones as a microphone or speaker when I entered a new video call.

I tried a number of troubleshooting steps to no avail, and saw that many others had similar headaches. Then I read an article about this issue by my colleague Lauren Dragan at Wirecutter, our sister publication that tests products. It turns out that Bluetooth headphones often encounter issues connecting with computers — this happens so frequently that manufacturers emphasize that wireless earphones are "optimized for mobile devices" and do not guarantee that they will work well with computers.

This makes sense to me: We tend to upgrade smartphones more regularly than we do computers, so mobile devices have newer Bluetooth technology that presumably works better with newer earbuds.

After reflecting on all of the video calls that have gone wrong for me, I bit the bullet and bought a relatively cheap, old-school wired headset from Logitech just for my virtual meetings. It costs $25 and works perfectly every time. Sometimes, you have to know when to call it quits on fancy tech.

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Before we go …

  • The not-so-invisible hand of Beijing: The company behind China's wildly popular WeChat app suspended new user registrations, which my colleague Paul Mozur said raised fears of new regulatory pressure. In recent months, Chinese authorities have been on a spree of tech scrutiny that has affected Uber-like Didi, food delivery services and online tutoring start-ups.
  • Questioning a technology frequently used in law enforcement: Vice's Motherboard publication reviewed court records that suggest that ShotSpotter, a technology that detects gunfire and alerts law enforcement, has sometimes modified data on the location and time of gunshots at the request of police departments.
  • The online video that brought attention and danger: An Iraqi teenager recorded an online video listing the troubles of his country and asking President Biden for help. The video went big, and my colleague Jane Arraf reported that the teen has been flooded with thousands of negative social media comments and is afraid to leave home.

Hugs to this

Mother and son set out to make origami cranes to mark the passage of time and learn about perseverance during the pandemic. They took the final photos last month of all 465 cranes.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech With Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018