As my research shows, these attitudes toward sexual pleasure have a long history.
But so do efforts to push back against them.
Almost a century ago, a pioneering American sex researcher named Katharine Bement Davis challenged the prevailing view that respectable women did not – and should not – experience sexual desire or have sex, except to please men or to have children.
By surveying everyday American women, she was able to show that it was completely normal for American women to have sex for the sake of pleasure.
Advertisement
An unlikely advocate for sexual liberation
Davis spent the first half of her career policing women’s sexuality, not promoting it.
In 1901, after earning her Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, Davis became superintendent of the New York State Reformatory for Women at Bedford Hills. While there, she studied the women in her care. Most female convicts, she concluded, were “immoral women.”
Davis’ efforts to enforce sexual morality drew the attention of philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr. In 1917, he invited her to lead his private agency, the Bureau of Social Hygiene, founded to study and combat prostitution and venereal disease.
During World War I, Davis promoted sex education to curb sexually transmitted infections among soldiers and civilians. Through this work, she became convinced that sexual ignorance – not sexual immorality – posed the greatest danger to women’s welfare.
Now, she also recognized that this double standard promoted women’s chastity at the expense of knowledge. She complained that discussions of women’s sexuality were “taboo,” which resulted in “distorted views, baffled speculation, and unfortunate experiences.”
Tackling a taboo topic
Insisting that Americans needed accurate information to achieve “a sane outlook on all matters pertaining to sex,” Davis made it her mission to teach women about sex.
Advertisement
But first, she needed to learn about women’s actual sexual experiences. Davis decided to undertake a large-scale study of what she called “the sex life of normal women.”
Davis’ approach was a dramatic departure from existing studies of “abnormal” sexuality focused on institutionalized populations. “Except on the pathological side,” she remarked, “sex is scientifically an unexplored country.”
By contrast, Davis explained, she wanted to understand “the woman who was not pathological mentally or physically.”
To that end, Davis distributed a detailed questionnaire to what she called “women of good standing in the community” from 1921 to 1923. The resulting study sample of 1,000 married women and 1,200 unmarried women was not representative – it skewed white, well-educated and well-to-do. But their responses allowed Davis to redefine female sexuality.
In the 1920s, as one commentator noted, a “revolution in manners and morals” was underway. Sex suffused popular culture. Contestants in beauty pageants displayed their charms in skimpy bathing costumes and short skirts. Actresses flaunted their sex appeal on stage and screen.
New attitudes about sex affected the daily lives of average Americans, too. Young women throughout the nation adopted the sexy look of “flappers,” the term used for women who sported short skirts, rolled stockings and bobbed hair.
Prior to the 1920s, courtship often took place in the home, allowing parents to closely supervise couples. But the ubiquitous automobile – which one juvenile court judge had dubbed “a house of prostitution on wheels” – rendered adult chaperonage obsolete and granted young people unprecedented sexual freedom.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, birth control activists like Margaret Sanger and Mary Ware Dennett distributed contraceptive devices and disseminated sexual information in defiance of the Comstock Act of 1873, which had defined birth control and sex education as “obscene” and made circulating such materials a federal crime.
Sex, secrecy and shame
Even amid the nation’s first sexual revolution, the facts of life remained in short supply.
According to surveys Davis distributed to married women, only about half of the respondents believed that they had been “adequately prepared … for the sex side of marriage.”
Many women didn’t know how pregnancy occurred. Some had been unprepared even for menstruation. One recalled that when she experienced her first period, “I naturally thought I was bleeding to death.”
In place of information, many women imbibed shame. “Having acquired the feeling as a small child that any sex pleasure was shameful and a great sin,” as one respondent put it, some could never overcome their discomfort with sex. Another woman regarded all sexual thoughts as “something to be shunned like the devil.”
One response succinctly summarized the problem: “Our present secrecy, fear, and repression are responsible for most of our sex ills.”
Advertisement
Challenging the conspiracy of silence
Many women were eager to challenge what one called a “conspiracy of silence” surrounding female sexuality.
Study participants ended up providing Davis with over 10,000 pages of handwritten responses. She used this information to produce the nation’s first major study of women’s sexuality, a 400-plus page book brimming with both statistical data and personal stories.
“Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women” covered a wide range of topics, ranging from sex education to sex play. Running throughout the entire work, however, was one central idea: Women liked sex.
Davis included data on birth control, same-sex relationships and masturbation. At the time, these practices were universally stigmatized and often criminalized. Yet significant proportions of study participants engaged in all these activities.
Davis’ data demonstrated that “normal” women experienced what one called “natural sex feeling.” In short, her study showed that many women enjoyed sex for its own sake.
Davis believed that reliable data would lead to “more satisfactory adjustments of the sex relationship.” In other words, better information would lead to better sex.
Davis’ legacy lives on. The findings from the Kinsey Institute’s latest study show that discussing sexual pleasure still matters, particularly for women. It also suggests that Americans’ understandings of sex have improved over the past century.
When Davis conducted her study in the 1920s, she found it “advisable” to define “orgasm” for participants who were unclear on the concept. Now, a generation of better-informed Americans ponder how to address a persistent “orgasm gap.”
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
(Family Features) Throughout history, humans’ ability to rely on one another has been crucial to survival. Despite modern developments that help individuals live with minimal human engagement, the human need to connect remains.
However, in many parts of America, a trend toward isolation is emerging. Over the past two decades, people are spending more time alone and less time engaging with others in person, according to data from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. One segment of Americans at particular risk of social isolation, loneliness and their negative impacts are select populations who live in rural areas.
“There is an urgent need to take action and improve mental health in rural America,” said Jeff Winton, dairy farmer and founder and chairman of Rural Minds, a nonprofit mental health advocacy organization that partnered with Pfizer to raise awareness about the physical and mental risks of social isolation. “Challenges to mental health can be inherent in a rural lifestyle, including a belief in self-reliance as a virtue, fear of judgment and difficulty getting an appointment with a limited number of mental health professionals, among others.”
Many Americans are increasingly spending more time alone according to the American Time Use Survey. They are increasingly more likely to take meetings, shop, eat and enjoy entertainment at home, making it easier for them to stay within their own four walls and avoid social interactions.
Authentic human connection is a basic but often unacknowledged necessity for health, “as essential to survival as food, water and shelter,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Health Effects of Social Connection and Community.
Understanding Social Isolation
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-third of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely and about one-fourth said they don’t have social and emotional support (the basis of social isolation).
The concepts of social isolation and loneliness can go hand-in-hand, but the two are actually quite different.
Social isolation is defined by an absence of relationships or contact with others. Someone experiencing loneliness may or may not have social connections, but lacks feelings of closeness, support or belonging. Despite the distinction, both can have a negative impact on a person’s mental and even physical health.
Several factors can influence a person’s risk for social isolation and loneliness.
“Social connection is a dynamic that changes over time,” said Nikki Shaffer, senior director, occupational health and wellness, Pfizer. “Transient feelings of loneliness or solitude may be beneficial because they can serve as motivation to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness (even if someone is not isolated) and isolation (even if someone is not lonely) can represent significant health concerns.”
Isolation in Rural America
Compared to people who live in urban areas, many rural Americans experience higher rates of depression and suicide but are less likely to access mental health care services, according to the “Health Disparities in Rural America: Current Challenges and Future Solutions” study published in “Clinical Advisor.” What’s more, CDC data shows suicide rates among people living in rural areas can be 64-68% higher than those in large urban areas.
Rural areas have 20% fewer primary care providers compared to urban areas, according to a report in JAMA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration reports more than 25 million rural Americans, more than half of rural residents, live in mental health professional shortage areas.
Among rural counties, 65% lack a psychiatrist. Nearly 30% of rural Americans don’t have internet access in their homes, which complicates the option for telehealth. These figures from Rural Minds exemplify the challenges facing rural America.
“Some people in rural communities still don’t understand or accept that mental illness is a disease,” said Winton, who grew up on a rural farm. “Rather, a mental illness can often be viewed as a personal weakness or character flaw. A lot of the stigma around mental illness results in unwarranted shame, which adds to the burden for someone already suffering from mental illness.”
Health Impacts of Social Isolation
Loneliness is far more than just a bad feeling; it harms both individual and societal health. In fact, loneliness and social isolation can increase the risk for premature death by 26% and 29%, respectively.
Lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day or drinking six alcoholic drinks daily.
In addition, poor or insufficient social connection is associated with increased risk of disease, including a 29% increased risk of heart disease and a 32% increased risk of stroke.
Social isolation is also associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression and dementia. Additionally, a lack of social connection may increase susceptibility to viruses and respiratory illness.
Learn more about the impact of social isolation, especially on residents of rural areas, and the steps you can take to reduce isolation and loneliness by visiting ruralminds.org.
Boost Your Social Connections
Take a proactive approach to combatting social isolation and loneliness with these everyday actions that can promote stronger social ties.
Invest time in nurturing your relationships through consistent, frequent and high-quality engagement with others. Take time each day to reach out to a friend or family member.
Minimize distractions during conversation to increase the quality of the time you spend with others. For instance, don’t check your phone during meals with friends, important conversations and family time.
Seek out opportunities to serve and support others, either by helping your family, co-workers, friends or people in your community or by participating in community service.
Be responsive, supportive and practice gratitude. As you practice these behaviors, others are more likely to reciprocate, strengthening social bonds, improving relationship satisfaction and building social capital.
Participate in social and community groups such as religious, hobby, fitness, professional and community service organizations to help foster a sense of belonging, meaning and purpose.
Seek help during times of struggle with loneliness or isolation by reaching out to a family member, friend, counselor, health care provider or the 988 crisis line.
Regulations have cleaned up cars, power plants and factories, leaving cleaner air while economies have grown.
Cavan Images/Josh Campbell via Getty ImagesRichard E. Peltier, UMass Amherst
The Trump administration is “reconsidering” more than 30 air pollution regulations, and it offered industries a brief window to apply for exemptions that would allow them to stop following many air quality regulations immediately if approved. All of the exemptions involve rules finalized in 2024 and include regulations for hazardous air pollutants that cause asthma, heart disease and cancer.
The results – if regulations are ultimately rolled back and if those rollbacks and any exemptions stand up to court challenges – could impact air quality across the United States.
“Reconsideration” is a term used to review or modify a government regulation. While Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin provided few details, the breadth of the regulations being reconsidered affects all Americans. They include rules that set limits for pollutants that can harm human health, such as ozone, particulate matter and volatile organic carbon.
Zeldin wrote on March 12, 2025, that his deregulation moves would “roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden “taxes” on U.S. families.“
What Zeldin didn’t say is that the economic and health benefits from decades of federal clean air regulations have far outweighed their costs. Some estimates suggest every $1 spent meeting clean air rules has returned $10 in health and economic benefits.
How far America has come, because of regulations
In the early 1970s, thick smog blanketed American cities and acid rain stripped forests bare from the Northeast to the Midwest.
Air pollution wasn’t just a nuisance – it was a public health emergency. But in the decades since, the United States has engineered one of the most successful environmental turnarounds in history.
Thanks to stronger air quality regulations, pollution levels have plummeted, preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. And despite early predictions that these regulations would cripple the economy, the opposite has proven true: The U.S. economy more than doubled in size while pollution fell, showing that clean air and economic growth can – and do – go hand in hand.
The numbers are eye-popping.
An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the first 20 years of the Clean Air Act, from 1970 to 1990, found the economic benefits of the regulations were about 42 times greater than the costs.
The EPA later estimated that the cost of air quality regulations in the U.S. would be about US$65 billion in 2020, and the benefits, primarily in improved health and increased worker productivity, would be around $2 trillion. Other studies have found similar benefits.
That’s a return of more than 30 to 1, making clean air one of the best investments the country has ever made.
Science-based regulations even the playing field
The turning point came with the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, which put in place strict rules on pollutants from industry, vehicles and power plants.
These rules targeted key culprits: lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter – substances that contribute to asthma, heart disease and premature deaths. An example was the removal of lead, which can harm the brain and other organs, from gasoline. That single change resulted in far lower levels of lead in people’s blood, including a 70% drop in U.S. children’s blood-lead levels.
Air Quality regulations lowered the amount of lead being used in gasoline, which also resulted in rapidly declining lead concentrations in the average American between 1976-1980. This shows us how effective regulations can be at reducing public health risks to people.USEPA/Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (1986)
The results have been extraordinary. Since 1980, emissions of six major air pollutants have dropped by 78%, even as the U.S. economy has more than doubled in size. Cities that were once notorious for their thick, choking smog – such as Los Angeles, Houston and Pittsburgh – now see far cleaner air, while lakes and forests devastated by acid rain in the Northeast have rebounded.
Comparison of growth areas and declining emissions, 1970-2023.EPA
And most importantly, lives have been saved. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically estimate the costs and benefits of air quality regulations. In the most recent estimate, released in 2011, the EPA projected that air quality improvements would prevent over 230,000 premature deaths in 2020. That means fewer heart attacks, fewer emergency room visits for asthma, and more years of healthy life for millions of Americans.
The economic payoff
Critics of air quality regulations have long argued that the regulations are too expensive for businesses and consumers. But the data tells a very different story.
EPA studies have confirmed that clean air regulations improve air quality over time. Other studies have shown that the health benefits greatly outweigh the costs. That pays off for the economy. Fewer illnesses mean lower health care costs, and healthier workers mean higher productivity and fewer missed workdays.
The EPA estimated that for every $1 spent on meeting air quality regulations, the United States received $9 in benefits. A separate study by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research in 2024 estimated that each $1 spent on air pollution regulation brought the U.S. economy at least $10 in benefits. And when considering the long-term impact on human health and climate stability, the return is even greater.
Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles in 1984: Smog was a common problem in the 1970s and 1980s.Ian Dryden/Los Angeles Times/UCLA Archive/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The next chapter in clean air
The air Americans breathe today is cleaner, much healthier and safer than it was just a few decades ago.
Yet, despite this remarkable progress, air pollution remains a challenge in some parts of the country. Some urban neighborhoods remain stubbornly polluted because of vehicle emissions and industrial pollution. While urban pollution has declined, wildfire smoke has become a larger influence on poor air quality across the nation.
That means the EPA still has work to do.
If the agency works with environmental scientists, public health experts and industry, and fosters honest scientific consensus, it can continue to protect public health while supporting economic growth. At the same time, it can ensure that future generations enjoy the same clean air and prosperity that regulations have made possible.
By instead considering retracting clean air rules, the EPA is calling into question the expertise of countless scientists who have provided their objective advice over decades to set standards designed to protect human lives. In many cases, industries won’t want to go back to past polluting ways, but lifting clean air rules means future investment might not be as protective. And it increases future regulatory uncertainty for industries.
The past offers a clear lesson: Investing in clean air is not just good for public health – it’s good for the economy. With a track record of saving lives and delivering trillion-dollar benefits, air quality regulations remain one of the greatest policy success stories in American history.
This article, originally published March 12, 2025, has been updated with the administration’s offer of exemptions for industries.Richard E. Peltier, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, UMass Amherst
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, a major transportation hub in Arizona, is set to undergo significant improvements with a new construction project at Terminal 3. According to AZ Family, the work is officially commencing this month on a project that will enhance the airport’s infrastructure, making it more accommodating for travelers.
Expansion at Sky Harbor
The upcoming expansion, which boasts a budget of $326 million, will introduce a new concourse on the north side of Terminal 3. This new addition is designed to increase the terminal’s capacity by adding six new passenger gates, bringing the total to 26 gates. The construction will encompass a vast 173,000 square feet, ultimately providing more flight options and enhanced facilities for travelers.
As reported by AZ Central, the expansion is much-needed, given that Terminal 3 is the oldest terminal at Sky Harbor. McCarthy Building Cos. Inc. has been entrusted with the construction, and they are committed to creating an exceptional experience for passengers. Thomas Assante, McCarthy’s senior project director, stated, “Every portion of the new Terminal 3 concourse will provide an exceptional experience for Sky Harbor passengers.” Notably, McCarthy has experience with airport projects, having recently completed a five-gate concourse at Mesa Gateway Airport, which opened in February 2024.
In addition to expanding gate capacity, the new Terminal 3 concourse plans to feature improvements beyond functionality. Travelers can look forward to new dining options, including three food and beverage spaces, as well as two retail spaces, alongside a passenger lounge. Greg Roybal, an airport spokesman, has confirmed these plans, emphasizing the project’s focus on improving the overall passenger experience.
The anticipated completion date for the new concourse is set for 2027. Once finished, this expansion will not only bolster the terminal’s capabilities but also enhance the amenities available to travelers. The airlines currently operating out of Terminal 3 include Delta, United, Frontier, and Alaska Airlines, among others.
As this construction project unfolds, we will keep readers updated with the latest developments and milestones. With these enhancements on the horizon, Sky Harbor Airport is poised to deliver an even better travel experience for passengers in the coming years. Stay tuned!
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
(Family Features) Throughout history, humans’ ability to rely on one another has been crucial to survival. Despite modern developments that help individuals live with minimal human engagement, the human need to connect remains.
However, in many parts of America, a trend toward isolation is emerging. Over the past two decades, people are spending more time alone and less time engaging with others in person, according to data from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. One segment of Americans at particular risk of social isolation, loneliness and their negative impacts are select populations who live in rural areas.
“There is an urgent need to take action and improve mental health in rural America,” said Jeff Winton, dairy farmer and founder and chairman of Rural Minds, a nonprofit mental health advocacy organization that partnered with Pfizer to raise awareness about the physical and mental risks of social isolation. “Challenges to mental health can be inherent in a rural lifestyle, including a belief in self-reliance as a virtue, fear of judgment and difficulty getting an appointment with a limited number of mental health professionals, among others.”
Many Americans are increasingly spending more time alone according to the American Time Use Survey. They are increasingly more likely to take meetings, shop, eat and enjoy entertainment at home, making it easier for them to stay within their own four walls and avoid social interactions.
Authentic human connection is a basic but often unacknowledged necessity for health, “as essential to survival as food, water and shelter,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Health Effects of Social Connection and Community.
Understanding Social Isolation
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-third of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely and about one-fourth said they don’t have social and emotional support (the basis of social isolation).
The concepts of social isolation and loneliness can go hand-in-hand, but the two are actually quite different.
Social isolation is defined by an absence of relationships or contact with others. Someone experiencing loneliness may or may not have social connections, but lacks feelings of closeness, support or belonging. Despite the distinction, both can have a negative impact on a person’s mental and even physical health.
Several factors can influence a person’s risk for social isolation and loneliness.
“Social connection is a dynamic that changes over time,” said Nikki Shaffer, senior director, occupational health and wellness, Pfizer. “Transient feelings of loneliness or solitude may be beneficial because they can serve as motivation to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness (even if someone is not isolated) and isolation (even if someone is not lonely) can represent significant health concerns.”
Isolation in Rural America
Compared to people who live in urban areas, many rural Americans experience higher rates of depression and suicide but are less likely to access mental health care services, according to the “Health Disparities in Rural America: Current Challenges and Future Solutions” study published in “Clinical Advisor.” What’s more, CDC data shows suicide rates among people living in rural areas can be 64-68% higher than those in large urban areas.
Rural areas have 20% fewer primary care providers compared to urban areas, according to a report in JAMA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration reports more than 25 million rural Americans, more than half of rural residents, live in mental health professional shortage areas.
Among rural counties, 65% lack a psychiatrist. Nearly 30% of rural Americans don’t have internet access in their homes, which complicates the option for telehealth. These figures from Rural Minds exemplify the challenges facing rural America.
“Some people in rural communities still don’t understand or accept that mental illness is a disease,” said Winton, who grew up on a rural farm. “Rather, a mental illness can often be viewed as a personal weakness or character flaw. A lot of the stigma around mental illness results in unwarranted shame, which adds to the burden for someone already suffering from mental illness.”
Health Impacts of Social Isolation
Loneliness is far more than just a bad feeling; it harms both individual and societal health. In fact, loneliness and social isolation can increase the risk for premature death by 26% and 29%, respectively.
Lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day or drinking six alcoholic drinks daily.
In addition, poor or insufficient social connection is associated with increased risk of disease, including a 29% increased risk of heart disease and a 32% increased risk of stroke.
Social isolation is also associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression and dementia. Additionally, a lack of social connection may increase susceptibility to viruses and respiratory illness.
Learn more about the impact of social isolation, especially on residents of rural areas, and the steps you can take to reduce isolation and loneliness by visiting 
