So Sexy So Soon

Communication critical: Want to help your children navigate a sex-saturated culture? They'll need to learn your beliefs -- not those all around them.

For a generation, conservatives have discussed the dramatic and oftentimes negative effects of cultural changes on our kids. In So Sexy So Soon, liberals join in and talk about the pernicious effects of the “new morality” on children from the perspective of the other end of the political spectrum. [1] Diane Levin, professor of education at Wheelock College, and Jean Kilbourne, a senior scholar at the Wellesley Centers for Women, highlight the gravity of a hypersexual consumer culture: the insidious way in which advertisers and the media use sex to drive a wedge between children and parents, to create demand among children for provocative toys and clothes, and to redefine even kindergarten to include “sexiness.”

The authors describe a six-year-old, who asks his parents about pornography seen at a friend’s house, and a seven-year-old who cries in the bath because she thinks her body isn’t skinny or sexy enough. Issues that previously surfaced in adolescence are percolating down to kindergarten, and Levin and Kilbourne place the blame for this phenomenon squarely upon mass consumer culture.

Their response is a call for expanded government regulation and more time spent on “media awareness” at school. They also suggest scripts for opening conversations about how to enlist teachers and principals in the effort to keep classrooms and playgrounds free of sexual innuendo. Readers won’t agree with every suggestion, but common ground can be found with their emphasis on good parenting and good communication with kids.

Few parents are prepared to react appropriately to fairly explicit questions about sexuality from their kids in grade school—or younger. But parental response is crucial. Parents, horrified to hear that their five-year-old told a friend he wanted to have sex with her, (when asked, the child said he thought that having sex was the same as giving a hug), should use this as a springboard to a calm and loving discussion—one that builds the kind of relationship that will help transmit values.

If parents erupt in anger, children will still have the same questions and instead go looking to find explanations on TV and in the playground, the very places that presented poor information in the first place. Respectful but firm discussions with parents of children’s friends about media exposure for younger children during play dates and parental supervision at parties when children are older are also important.

Even the most cloistered upbringing cannot fully prevent exposure to popular culture. In fact, especially as children grow up, Levin and Kilbourne argue that this isn’t even really desirable, since young adults can only navigate successfully on their own if they have internalized their family’s values about sex, sexuality and moral behaviour. Children raised in a home with no television or internet connection are part of the broader, and increasingly vulgar culture. Billboards and ads on buses are sexually suggestive when they are not actually explicit, as are magazines in grocery stores. Children internalize values more readily from their peers than from their families, and new research shows how powerfully media acts as a “superpeer,” shaping attitudes and behaviour among teens.[1] Levin and Kilbourne attribute weakening parental influence in part to the thorny nature of most discussions of sex and sexuality between parents and children.

Levin and Kilbourne are certainly liberal—they point approvingly to parents who take their daughter to a same-sex commitment ceremony as an example of open-minded parenting, for example. But as such, they are carrying a message to those who most need to hear it, those who have outright dismissed cultural concerns, pretending they are part of some conservative conspiracy. In the end, an increasingly sexual world affects all of us. “Culture warriors” must partner with liberals in order to effect change, whether in private life or public policy. So Sexy So Soon highlights some of the elements of the culture wars in which traditionalists and liberals can partner for the benefit of our kids.

Rebecca Walberg is a Winnipeg-based writer and policy analyst. She wrote this review for The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

[1] Brown, J., Tucker Halpern, C. and Ladin L’Engle, K. (2005). Mass media as a sexual super peer for early maturing girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36: 420–427.

The cold hearts of digital voyeurs

Earlier this month, the world witnessed the internet version of a man standing on a ledge threatening to jump. Instead of snarling strangers yelling “jump!”, digital voyeurs tapped away on their keyboards as they watched the life drain out of 19-year-old Abraham Biggs.

On November 19 at about 3am, Biggs (aka feels-like-ecstasy), began his web cast on Justin.tv with an announcement that he had overdosed on drugs. He also posted a suicide note. As this modern tragedy progressed, the chorus debated whether he had taken enough pills or whether he was faking. Others challenged Biggs to finish the job. A few tried to talk him out of it. Throughout, there were the laugh messages -- LOL and ha-hah-ha. At 11am, a few noticed that Biggs was motionless. Eventually, one viewer contacted the moderator to get Biggs’ contact information. Twelve hours after Biggs’ declaration of death, the curtain came down. Police broke down the locked door of the Florida apartment and found the young man dead.

Biggs is not the first to commit suicide on a webcam. Last year a British man hanged himself on camera. His viewers also taunted and laughed at him until they noticed that he was turning blue.

Rosalind Biggs, Abraham's sister, described her brother as an outgoing college student who loved taking his nieces to Chuck E. Cheese. Biggs also had a darker side, a history of bipolar disorder. Still, his sister says that her brother’s death was sudden and a shock.

Biggs’ family was understandably angry with his son’s callous chat room acquaintances. “It didn’t have to be,” she lamented.

His father was “appalled.” Abraham Biggs Sr. chastised his son’s viewers: "It's a person's life that we're talking about. And as a human being, you don't watch someone in trouble and sit back and just watch." The death of his child could have been prevented. A quicker response might have saved his life.

The father’s anger may be easily dismissed because there is no clear legal accountability. Nonetheless, he is correct about the moral responsibility. Abraham Biggs Sr is tortured by the idea that his son’s webcast was a cry for help. He is further tortured by the lack of response.

Understandable, but less forgivable, has been the reaction of journalists and their experts. Much of the media coverage has been focused on finding a scandal. The obvious scandal is the question of liability. Can chat rooms be sued? Lawyers say it’s a stretch.

The echo chamber of the press and cultural experts assure us that this is basically kids being kids. Associated Press summed up the event as an “extreme example of young people’s penchant for sharing intimate details about themselves over the internet”.

A University of Ohio assistant professor of popular culture told AP that the public suicide was not shocking (emphasis mine) given the way teenagers chronicle every facet of their lives on sites like Facebook and MySpace. When did suicide become a banality in our culture? Furthermore, how could the revelation of a suicidal threat be placed in the same category as some schoolgirl’s latest crush? Even stranger is the notion that people who remain anonymous and talk about themselves are being intimate or sharing secrets. How intimate was Biggs with the public? He never even revealed his name and address.

If Biggs is just another exhibitionistic teen, then what can be said about the spectators of this 12-hour death watch? Some may not have been certain that he was dying. They may thought that he was joking. Yet the audience watched because in the dark recesses of their minds, they were titillated by the idea that he might actually be dying. Are young people naturally this callous or does the internet harden their hearts?

Yes to both questions.

Consider the popularity of fight videos on YouTube. In a recent interview British philosopher, Roger Scruton predicts that “the result of the internet will be a widespread hardening of the human heart, and a replacement of true relationships between people with their cyber-substitutes.”

The Florida teen’s suicide shows the deficiency in these cyber-substitutes. One may find mutual interests on the internet and a semblance of friendship. Can a friendship grow in chat room where the occupants buzz by like bees going from flower to flower? As with many people seeking companionship on the web, Biggs may have bought the line that chat rooms are communities. True communities are neighbors helping neighbors; not neighbors watching neighbors for amusement.

Like the man standing on the ledge, Abraham Biggs may have been hoping for a rescue, hoping for someone standing on the street with a safety net. Unfortunately, on the web, there is no net.

By: Theron Bowers MD is a Texas psychiatrist.

Same sex marriage and its threat to religious liberty

Tactics used by gay marriage campaigners confirm believers’ worst fears.

As wildfires blazed in California last week, anger at the outcome of the state’s referendum on marriage blazed across the country. After a hard-fought campaign over Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a clear majority of California voters endorsed it, and the gay marriage lobby was enraged.

Now, as same sex marriage campaigners take the issue back to the courts, it is unclear what the outcome of this battle will be. Will their demands trump the democratic process? It has happened before.

What is clearer than ever is that same sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Disagreement over the extent of that threat played a key role in the debate over Proposition 8. As an independent consultant to the campaign, I must say that the post-election behaviour of the opponents of Prop 8 does not reassure religious believers.

The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign applied this argument in print and electronic ads. “Churches could lose their tax exempt status,” we said. “People could be sued for their personal beliefs.” The opponents of Prop 8 replied by calling us liars. Their argument was, “No church will lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings.”

Note the sleight of hand: we made a general statement that churches could lose their tax exempt status, as well as have other legal problems. The opponents of Prop 8 brought up the one issue -- refusing to perform weddings -- which they knew the court had specifically exempted from legal challenge. On this basis, they accused us of misleading the public.

I personally was asked many times whether pastors would be forced to bless same sex unions. I told people the pastors were probably safe for now, but that the trend was not encouraging. The most likely outcome, I consistently said, was that the zone of religious freedom would become steadily more constricted. We cited many cases to support this prediction.

Catholic Charities in Boston shut down its adoption agency, rather than comply with the anti-discrimination requirement for the placement of children. A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued when it refused to rent out its hall for a same sex wedding reception. A Christian marriage counselor lost her job when she referred a lesbian couple to another therapist, rather than counsel them herself. A Christian photographer was fined by a Human Rights Commission in New Mexico because she refused to take pictures at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.

The No on 8 forces claimed that the cases we brought up had nothing to do with marriage. Gays had used anti-discrimination law in these cases, not marriage law, to sue and otherwise harass churches and religious people. (In fact, marriage was an issue in some of the cases.) In effect the gay lobby argued: “We already have all the legal authority we need to do all sorts of Dreadful Things that You Don’t Like, so vote no on 8.”

Oddly enough, people of faith were not reassured by this message.

But refusal to take the religious liberty argument seriously was not the only way the No on 8 forces showed their hostility to religion. On the Sunday before the election, our opponents ran a truly despicable hate-filled ad against the Mormon church. The ad ran the day before the election, when it was almost impossible to respond to it.

Proposition 8 won the election. Over six million people voted for it for a whole variety of reasons. It is safe to say that the religious liberty argument played a significant role. People waved signs that said, “Proposition 8 = Religious Liberty” and “Proposition 8 = Freedom of Speech.” Even though no one could predict the exact form the legal harassment might take, many voters decided the risk to their own churches was unacceptable.

In the aftermath of the election, the No on Prop 8 forces have taken to the streets, attempting to de-legitimize the election. Their behavior toward religious people amply confirms our worst fears.

The gay lobby targeted the Mormon church. Thousands of protesters surrounded Mormon temples in Los Angeles and in Salt Lake City in an obvious attempt at intimidation. Protestors carry signs saying, “Mormon Scum,” a sentiment that would be widely condemned as bigoted if directed at anyone else. Envelopes with suspicious white powder arrived at the Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus headquarters in Connecticut.

People have called for the LDS church to lose its tax exempt status. An enterprising reporter found that the LDS spent a grand total of less than $3,000 in an in-kind contribution. The other “Mormon millions” were small contributions by thousands of individual members of the church. Gay activists are scouring the election law, looking for minor violations the church or its members might have made.

This attempt to enlist the government for intimidation actually illustrates the point that concerned us throughout the campaign. If you cross the gay lobby, they will use the legal system to go after you. By passing Prop 8, the voters declined to give the gay lobby any additional legal tools.

The authors of Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty were not exaggerating. The drive for same sex marriage really does clash with religious liberty. The nation-wide post-election outburst gives Yes on 8 voters all the evidence they need that they did the right thing.

Reference: (Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.http://www.ruthinstitute.org/)

UK government pushes contraceptive jabs for teens

Desperate to meet a target for reducing teenage pregnancies by 2010, the British government has instructed 21 local authorities to promote long-acting contraceptive injections or implants for girls in their areas. The government also wants more school-based clinics to administer the jabs, which can makes girls infertile for up to three months. Teenagers can receive the injections or implants without their parents’ knowledge. The contraceptive push targets areas with high and increasing rates of teenage pregnancy and repeat abortions.

Official figures show there are 1200 girls under 15 taking long-acting contraception, as well as 2900 15-year-olds and 11,500 girls aged 16 or 17. These jabs and implants have been given to girls as young as 13. The government wants to see a big increase in the uptake because it has identified failures by teenage girls to take the daily pill correctly as one reason for under-age pregnancies. The UK has the second-highest rate for under-18s (41.3 per thousand) after the US.

Some health experts oppose the move, saying that contraceptive use over a long period may impact adversely on bone growth, and that girls will get a false sense of security since they will not necessarily be protected against STIs, which are also on the increase. “And will it work?” asks Dr Hans Christian Raabe. “I have not seen a single convincing study to show that provision of contraception leads to a reduction in teenage pregnancy. What is needed is behavioural change.”

China forced abortion dropped after US pressure

Forced abortions can still occur in China under the one-child policy, as a case that has been brought to international attention shows. An ethnic woman in the north-western Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region who is six months pregnant was forcibly taken by police to a hospital early this week to have the baby, her third child, aborted. However, pressure from the United States led to the abortion being abandoned. “I brought her home,” the local population control committee chief told Radio Free Asia. “She wasn’t in good enough health to have an abortion.”

The one-child policy applies mainly to majority Han Chinese and allows ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs, to have additional children, with peasants permitted to have three children and city-dwellers two. But while Tursun is a peasant, her husband is from the city, so their status is unclear. The government also uses financial incentives and disincentives to keep the birth-rate low. Couples can pay steep fines to have more children, although the fines are well beyond most people’s means.

The official website China Xinjiang Web reports that in three almost exclusively Uyghur areas, women over 49 with only one child are entitled to a one-time payment of 3,000 yuan (US$440), with the couple receiving 600 yuan ($88) yearly thereafter. The government plans to spend 25.6 million yuan ($3.7m) this year rewarding families who have followed the population policy, which it claims has prevented the births of some 3.7 million people in Xianjiang over the last 30 years.

The policy is enforced more strictly in cities, but penalties for exceeding the quota can be severe, including job losses, demotions, or expulsion from the Communist Party. Officials at all levels are subject to rewards or penalties based on whether they meet population targets set by their administrative region.

Happiness is not watching TV

Unhappy people watch more television, while people who describe themselves as very happy spend more time on reading, socialising and religion, a new American study shows. Researchers at the University of Maryland analysed 30 years worth of data from time-use studies and social attitude surveys and found that spending time watching TV may cheer people up briefly but leave them dissatisfied in the long run. That means, says co-author and sociologist John P Robinson, that as the economy worsens and people lose their jobs, TV viewing might increase significantly and also sleep. However, happiness would take a plunge.

The study, which aimed to find out how various activities correlate with happiness, found that unhappy people watch about 20 per cent more TV than very happy people, after taking into account education, income, marital status and other factors with a bearing on happiness and TV viewing. One reason seems to be that TV viewing is “easy”. Viewers don’t have to go anywhere, dress up, find company, plan ahead, expend energy, do any work or spend money in order to view -- but they get instant gratification. No wonder Americans spend more than half their free time as TV viewers, the researchers say.

Unhappy people had two problems with time: they either had too much on their hands (51 per cent) compared to very happy people (19 per cent) or felt rushed for time (35 per cent vs 23 per cent). Having too much time was the bigger burden of the two. The researchers liken the passing pleasure of TV to addiction and note that socially or personally disadvantaged people are most vulnerable to addiction.

It is worth noting that General Social Survey data showed that very happy people go to church five times more a year than those who are somewhat happy and seven times more than not happy people.

“What Do Happy People Do?”, by John P Robinson and Steven Martin. Social Indicators Research, December 2008

Regaining lost ground

Learning how to harness the power of the internet is something that most pro-life organizations have yet to learn.

A 17-year-old girl discovers she is pregnant. She is no longer dating her boyfriend and feels scared and alone. Rather than turn to her parents for advice and support, she logs onto Google and searches for 'unplanned pregnancy'. The websites she finds will heavily influence whether or not she continues with her pregnancy.

What is the outcome of her searching? At the time of writing, not one of the websites presented will encourage her to keep her unborn child. In fact, seven of the first ten results are links to abortion providers or websites supported by pro-choice organisations (eg, Marie Stopes International). Similar results are produced for searches on 'abortion help' and 'abortion information'.

Pro-choice organisations are vitally aware of the importance of the internet in a pregnant woman's decision making process. For example, Marie Stopes International opened their online 'abortion information chat service' after feedback showed that "when it comes to seeking out information on sexual health services, women have nominated the internet as their second preferred avenue for information after their GP." (1)

As it stands today, the pro-choice movement is winning the abortion war. By moving with the times and harnessing the power of the internet, these organisations are ensuring their message is heard.

Regaining Lost Ground: Investing Online

For pro-life organisations, a dramatic shift in campaigning priorities is required. It is no longer enough to simply publish a template-driven website, created by an untrained operator, and then direct all attention to ‘taking action on the streets’. Funds need to be invested online, which one could say is now the 'frontline' in this war against abortion.

First impressions count: Design is important

Firstly, the website. To be taken seriously, the site should have an appealing design and provide informative content that is easy to navigate. It is recommended that a professional designer be engaged for the initial development. A professional, custom website can be acquired for as little as $1000-$2000 (depending on the number of pages required). It will likely be the most 'influential' campaigning investment the organisation ever makes.

Be Visible in Google: Implement Basic SEO Techniques

Secondly, if the website is to have any chance of being effective, it must rank highly in the major search engines - namely, Google, Yahoo! and nineMSN. Of these, Google is by far the most important with 88% of the search market in Australia. (2)

 

Notes
(1) What women want when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, Marie Stopes International/WebSurvey, Nov 2006
(2) Source: HitWise June 2008 Search Engine Update

Reshaping the bioethical landscape

The electoral tidal wave which swept Democrat Barack Obama into the White House and Democrat majorities into the Senate and the House of Representatives could reshape the bioethical landscape in the United States.

The most obvious issue is abortion. Mr Obama is a strong supporter of a woman’s right to abortion. The leading abortion action group, Planned Parenthood, gave him “100%” on its electoral scorecard. After reviewing Obama's legislative record, Professor Robert P. George, of Princeton University, wrote a scathing analysis of his views on pro-life issues. His conclusion: “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

Under George W. Bush, a relatively pro-life president, abortion activists felt threatened. On his first day in office he had blocked federal aid to foreign groups that promoted abortion. He appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who apparently took a dim view of Roe v. Wade, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He signed a ban on partial-birth abortion. His appointees in the Federal bureaucracy tried to thwart sales of emergency contraception to minors and promoted abstinence-only sex education. In Planned Parenthood’s eyes, Bush had declared war on women.

The website of the new administration’s transition team does not mention FOCA. But it does reassure abortion activists that Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.” It also declares that he will support the Prevention First Act, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education and promote emergency contraception.

Obama still has not taken office, so many details remain to be worked out. Will hospitals which currently refuse to do abortions be threatened with loss of funding? Will health care workers effectively lose the right to conscientious objection in abortion and emergency contraception?

YES on 8 wins: One man one wife

SAN FRANCISCO — A giant rainbow-colored flag in the gay-friendly Castro neighborhood of San Francisco was flying at half-staff on Wednesday as social and religious conservatives celebrated passage of measures that ban same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona.

In California, where same-sex marriage had been performed since June, the ban had seemingly passed with more than 52 percent of the vote, according to figures by the secretary of state and projections by several California news media outlets. Opponents of same-sex marriage won by even bigger margins in Arizona and Florida. Just two years ago, Arizona rejected a similar ban.

The across-the-board sweep, coupled with passage of a measure in Arkansas intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children, was a stunning victory for religious conservatives, who had little else to celebrate on an Election Day that saw Senator John McCain lose and other ballot measures, like efforts to restrict abortion in South Dakota, California and Colorado, rejected.

“It was a great victory,” said the Rev. James Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego County and a leader of the campaign to pass the California measure, Proposition 8. “We saw the people just rise up.”

The losses deeply dismayed supporters of same-sex marriage, and ignited a debate about whether the movement to expand the rights of same-sex couples had hit a cultural brick wall, even at a time when another civil rights success — the election of a black president — had occurred. Thirty states have now passed bans on same-sex marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage in California, where the fight on Tuesday was fiercest, appeared to have been outflanked by the measure’s highly organized backers and, exit polls indicated, and hurt by the large turnout among black and Hispanic voters drawn to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy. Mr. Obama opposes same-sex marriage.

California will still allow same-sex civil unions, but that is not an option in Arizona and Florida. Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters — and 74 percent of black women — voted for the ban.