Tiny Living

I want to live in a small house. A house with just enough room for me to live, sleep, and eat. A house that is energy efficient and must be organized to be functional. Jay Shafer is going to give me this house.

Shafer started Tumbleweed Houses about twelve years ago, building and living in his first eighty-nine square foot house. The house comes complete with bathroom with shower, gas stove, living room, and loft bedroom. "It's very un-American in the sense that living small means consuming less," says Shafer, 46, co-founder of the Small House Society. "Living in a small house like this really entails knowing what you need to be happy and getting rid of everything else."

The Small House Society is a voice for the small house movement with a mission to “support the research, development, and use of smaller living spaces that foster sustainable living for individuals, families, and communities worldwide.” The goal is not exclusion of those who live in larger houses or defining what a small house constitutes. A house for an individual would be far too small for a family of five. The idea is to identify what you and your family needs to live happily and fits your lifestyle. Shafer understands this, as he moved into an eight hundred square foot home when his son was born and his family needed more room to be comfortable. Houses do not need to be used for only family, but can also be used as a supplementary home for an aging parent or a guest home.

Tumbleweed Houses sells both blueprints and ready-made homes (many of which come on wheels), encouraging owners to build their own home for roughly $20,000 while ready-made homes range from $40,000 - $50,000. Houses range from sixty-five to eight hundred and thirty-seven square feet. Since the housing crisis the business has grown significantly with more individuals looking to streamline their home costs, downsize their living arrangements, and live more sustainably. Because the houses come on wheels, it is easier for these homeowners to skirt around housing regulations of regular homes.

I have very seriously looking into purchasing one of these homes because really, how much room do we each need? I love organization and the small home movement requires organization and conciseness in life. The house is more affordable, uses fewer natural resources and can be moved along with you. Talk about literally taking your whole life across the country.  The small home movement is gaining momentum and selling more than just homes to people across the country. They are selling a lifestyle, a world of identification of what is truly important in your life and what we can each live without. 

What is Personal Responsibility?

Recently, Edy's Fresh Scoop discussed San Francisco's decision to disincentive McDonald's Happy Meals and subsequently explored the subject of personal responsibility versus social or governmental responsibility. Which makes me ponder the question: Where does my personal responsibility end?

Let's begin with San Francisco's decision. Fast - food chains are no longer able to include toys in meals that are determined to be excessive in calories, sodium, or fat. Vegetables or fruit must replace items such as French fries in these meals. The government is not limiting what children are able to receive in terms of nutrition in these meals. What is being limited is the incentive for children to desire meals based on material goods. Children, instead, are provided with incentives to develop healthier eating habits. Parents are provided with an alternative option, able to feed their children healthier and affordable meal options. The argument against this ordinance is that the government should not attempt to monitor what children eat or limit a business's selling options. People, instead, should be responsible for their own food intake and their children's.

I understand the argument of personal responsibility, but will argue it in a different direction. If my personal responsibility is only to myself, and (should I choose to have them) my children, am I absolutely in no way responsible for anything else? In 1964, one Kitty Genovese was murdered in a New York neighborhood. No less than thirty-eight people heard or saw the murder taking place. One person called the police, over half an hour after the stabbing began. It was not the personal responsibility of these witnesses to phone the police. So they did not. And Kitty Genovese died. 

As far as childhood obesity, the disease has more than tripled in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC warns us that obesity leads to an increase in heart disease, bone and joint problems, types of cancer, strokes, as well as psychological problems such as low self-esteem and poor social interaction skills. The First Lady Michelle Obama has vowed to combat this growing medical issue with her Let's Move campaign, urging children to be active and eat healthier. Diet, and not exercise, has been cited as a more important factor in the health of individuals and especially in tackling obesity. 

Perusing the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President (May 2010), a number of interesting factors stand out. 

1) 23.5 million people, 6.5 million children, live more than a mile from a grocery store in a low-income neighborhood. Families in low-income neighborhoods typically work more than one job and live below or near the poverty line. Research has found that there is a significant link between the availability of supermarkets and childhood BMI and obesity status. 

2) Research indicates advertising has a strong impact on children. Children prefer food if they think the food is from McDonalds as opposed to another source. Marketing to children is a billion dollar investment just in the food service industry alone. As for San Francisco, Scott Rodrick, owner of ten fast food businesses in the area, says, "none of his current menu items would be allowed under the nutritional guidelines in the ordinance".

3) Preschoolers were asked if they would rather eat broccoli or a Hersey's Chocolate Bar. Only 22% chose broccoli, while 78% chose chocolate. However, once an Elmo sticker was placed on the broccoli, 50% of children chose the broccoli. Using licensed characters in the promotion of food to children has increased, while the health of the foods being promoted concurrently has decreased. 

4) Since 2006, the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (which includes Burger King and McDonald's), advertising to children has been monitored to promote healthier food options and incentivize more nutritious choices. 

These are just a few findings from the one hundred and twenty-four page report, but the findings are clear. Obesity is a problem, and advertising to children plays a large factor. Which brings me back to San Francisco. If McDonald's and Burger King have already agreed under the CFBAI to incentivize healthier options in advertising, should they not incentivize healthier options in practice as well? 

Take the Motion Picture Association of America. Movie ratings are created to protect children from viewing content that is generally inadvisable for children to view. Children are not at the same age developmentally or socially and do have the same ability to process information as adults.  In youth, children cannot separate reality from fantasy in film or in, well, reality. Steps are taken to protect children in their developmental processes.

Now, if we (as a society) support steps being taken to protect children's development from being impeded, why are we ignoring their physical development as well? Is this where the line is drawn in personal responsibility? Should we scale back our responsibility and allow parents to take children to films without any comment to their content, and that content's impact on children?

Perhaps we should scale back personal responsibility even further. Why is there a PTA? Why is there a parent list at schools, carpools, and babysitters? Let's go further: Say you're at a park with your children and there is a team practicing soccer on the field across the way. As the practice ends, all the parents leave with their children, except one child whose family is running late. The soccer coach leaves because his children are accounted for and the lonely child is not his personal responsibility. The child, alone on the field, is approached by a man and taken against his will. You, watching from afar, do nothing. The child is not your personal responsibility, so why should you take action? The parents should have been there on time. 

Let's backtrack to McDonald's and San Francisco. If we are willing to take care of other children, provide support for families that your child interacts with, work with the school system to enhance the quality of our education, wait an extra ten minutes at the soccer field to make sure your son or daughter's teammate is picked up by a guardian, and provide protection for the viewing habits of children at their most crucial developmental stage, why are we unwilling to additionally support and protect children from the content they put in their bodies? Why are we willing to allow children to ingest products that do not meet nutritional standards to live a healthy lifestyle? 

Personal responsibility should not stop at you. There is social responsibility, both of the individual and of the state. We need to stop incentivizing products which are unhealthy simply because it is good for society. Children are not able to distinguish health and goodness. Incentivizing works, as argued in the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President (May 2010). We should promote the healthy and devalue the unhealthy for the health of not only our own, but everyone's children. People who do not have access to the same grocery supplies as I do (I am walking distance from three separate stores) should be allowed to find options for health at their most convenient places of consumption. 

Are we not responsible for the life of the child we saw (hypothetically) kidnapped at the park? Are New Yorkers not responsible for allowing the slow and brutal murder of Kitty Genovese to continue for over thirty minutes? If we are not responsible for each other, if society does not care for the well being of the whole, there is no society left to care for. So, Gavin Newsom, I hope you consider not vetoing this ordinance. San Francisco Board of Supervisors, you are taking action to protect the future of America and putting this country back a path of health. 

My Kind of Store

I like sex. And so do you. And so do, apparently, the people of Hunstville, Alabama, where the first Drive-Thru Sex Toy Shop has opened in America this very day (November 13, 2010). In Alabama, laws exist that ban the purchase of various phallic objects because there is "nothing 'private' or 'consensual' about the advertising and sale of a dildo". Such items are deemed unfit for sale as a public activity (even though I would argue that these banned items are generally privately used) because of public morality. 

Which makes me wonder, what is our public morality? In America, we have actors-who-play-teenagers posing scantily across the glossy pages of GQ magazine. Sex tapes are a dime a dozen and some "celebrities" are famous primarily for their tapes (Warning: Adult Content Included). Miss California made quite the scandal last year with an anti-gay marriage stint, followed by a sex tape, a battle of fake or not fake breast talk, a dethroning, concluded with a quick marriage. Miley Cyrus seems to come up with a new scandal once a week. 


So really, with the overstimulation facing society today, should Alabama really expect anything else from it's citizens? Overt sexuality may be discomforting to some, but this open sexuality is overwhelmingly honest about the nature of sex today and should be advocated to begin honest and healthy conversations about sex in America. 

Let's take a different approach. Last I checked, ectogenesis has not yet been perfected (think Aldous Huxley's Brave New World), and therefore, sex is still necessary for the continuation of our species. Furthermore, with the vast developments in contraception widely available to larger public, sex has become an act associated with pleasure and expression and not limited to simply procreation. 


It is not uncommon to take control of one's sexual life, engaging in activities that each individual (or couple, or group) finds satisfying. With the ability to control sexuality in such a powerful way, it is no wonder people have turned to practices that enhance the sexual experience with a whole host of new (and exciting) possibilities. Conclusion: People are going to have sex.

As of January 2010, 46% of children aged 15-19 had had sex at least once. Genital touching and body exploration begins as young as three or four in children. Curiosity is natural, especially in children. Sex is a beautiful and natural act. Alabamans should not be banned from openly expressing their sexual desires. The shop is not forcing sex or masturbation on anyone (So don't you worry Christine O'Donnell). The shop is relatively discreet in appearance, and no one must enter unless they have a desire too. Hell, even if they have a desire for a product, they do not have to enter! That's what the drive-thru must be for! A one-stop shop where you are not even required to exit your vehicle to obtain all the materials needed for your pleasurable evening. Or afternoon. Or morning. 

I honestly do not know how someone had not created this sooner. I do not consider myself any sort of closeted, sex-crazed nymphomaniac. I consider myself your average young adult: I am in no way ready to start a family, but am not ready to compromise a healthy sex life. There is no reason for me to forego taking necessary contraceptive precautions, taking off my clothes, and jumping in bed. And, should the moment be right, why should I be denied the choice of "spicing up" my evening with a quick drive-thru sex stop after a date? I tip my hat to you, Pleasures of Alabama. 

Our public morality is not lacking. Our honesty is. And honestly, I like sex. So what if the cast of Glee also enjoys sex, as does Miley Cyrus, Miss California, and numerous celebrities with leaked sex tapes? Honestly, I would be more surprised if they did not enjoy sex. Yes, perhaps they should be more private with their excursions in the sack, but Hollywood’s (often overt) sexuality should not be condemned, but commended. Celebrities like sex. And so do you. 


Perhaps if the rest of America (I’m talking to you Alabama Supreme Court), adopted an honest conversation about sex, taking control of your sexual life and making healthy decisions regarding sex, the communication of this culture could change to inclusivity and honesty.

Alabamans may ask, why a drive through sex shop? But I’ll pose the more important question. Why the hell not? 

The Campaign of Lies

This past week, Americans spoke, and they spoke Republican. No one should be surprised, as the president's party traditionally loses Congressional seats in the midterm election. Republicans took back the House of Representatives in an overwhelming fashion and sharply shortened the distance in Senate. Some 700 plus state seats and nine governorships went red. The most interesting part of the overwhelming transition from Democrat to Republican is that the platform on which many (if not all) Republican candidates for federal office ran is overturning the recent health care reform law. I cannot, in any feasible world, see how this can occur. Did voters actually think this could happen? Let's walk this through.


First, I will admit openly, the law is not perfect. President Obama acknowledges that this law will have to be "tweaked" in the future and is not perfect as is. However, he maintains that the law is beneficial to society and does not seek to have it replaced.


Republicans now have the majority in the House, but it boggles my mind how the newly-elected representatives will be able to repeal or enact a new law. Any form of repeal will be vetoed in the White House. Any law or alteration to the current law that the President ultimately disagrees with will be vetoed in the White House.


When the law heads back to Congress, Congress will not have the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the veto and make the bill into a law. The overturning of a health care bill under Republican terms simply cannot occur. Yes, alterations and small amendments supported by Democrats or the President can be enacted. Yes, there are items in the excessively long bill which should be modified for the benefit of the general public. There is already a starting point on the table, with the health care bill already passed and signed into law. A starting point is much better than scarping any work which has been done and starting over in a new Congress which is bound to be just as stubborn and partisan (if not more so) than the previous Congress.


Whatever your personal views on the current health care bill, there is no denying the Republicans were given a freebie on this election. There is simply no logical path for the party to repeal health care. There is no way. Making this promise to the American public is offensive to the intelligence of voters and of registered Republicans in particular. Did Americans not understand that the health care bill can not be repealed? Did they not care? Perhaps other issues were more important to voters this year, but I do not understand how Republicans were not called out on this preemptively broken promise.


I do not understand how this passed as their platform. It is simply not possible. This promise will be broken. That I can promise.

Lost in America

Censorship in America is, in principle, generally met with disgust and disapproval, but is in actuality approached with inactivity and passivity. The WikiLeaks release of thousands of documents regarding the Iraq War just over a week ago is nearly completely removed from the news cycle and the psyche of the American public. Information is removed from public, censored from the view of the country and Americans . . . do not care. Or notice.

The 24 hours news cycle creates a surplus of information, making it difficult for average Americans to sift through the volume and seek concrete fact and stories. Perhaps this has contributed to the apathy toward information and participation in our "free" society. 

How has this country created an atmosphere of apathy and ignorance toward activities of the government, military, and greater society? Americans believe they are free because they are told they are free. However, much of society's responibilities are delegated to political elite without American input or knowledge. Citizens allow this to happen. Even when an attempt is made to provide enlightenment and insight to the inner workings of governmental institutions the American people do not capitalize on the chance to force accountability and honesty on the purveyors of censorship. 

The ignorance of the American public is a self-inflcited curse, condemning our society to a world of increased censorship and distraction. Disallowing the government to continually acknowledge and take accountability for the information conveyed in thousands of documents released by a non-governmental entity is a parody of the freedom we champion as Americans. The torture which continued after President Barack Obama's absolute abhorrence of the practice and Executive Order banning such interrogation should diminish faith and honesty in the president. Instead, his approval rating went up some six points this past week. One Newsweek poll has Obama above fifty percent.

What happened to the presidential nominee whose aversion to torture was prominent and esteemed? These documents released, detailing the procedural process of various detainees and the detainers' direct violations of the Geneva Conventions, do not send any Americans up in arms about lies and outright criminality.  The death of over 66,000 civilians in the six year war does not instigate any sort of disgust, disappointment, or even general recognition and awareness (That's 31 civilians dead every day from 2003-2009, in case you are too dispassionate to do the math). As for the people we were actually fighting, 23,984 "enemies" were killed during the same time period. 

One article addressing the questioning of Obama's policies received 218 comments (as of October 30, 2010). Articles mentioned on the same page included "Charlie Sheen Found Nude in Restaurant" (2,767 comments), "Christine O'Donnell Reveals Surprising Personal Information" (2,311 comments), and "Rally to Restore Sanity Attendance Estimated in Hundreds of Thousands" (12,340 comments). A discussion of a losing candidate's favorite television show, the number of people who attended a rally sponsored by Comedy Central, and a naked actor all trump the interest level regarding presidential censorship, unlawfulness, and deception. 

While there is an over-surplus of information bombarding the American public everyday, the access to such amounts of information also allows for an individual to find concise news, informational news, biased news, fictional news, boring news, and factual news. The amount of news should never be an excuse for an inability to read it. There are thousands of avenues Americans can travel to access headlines, articles, and reports, and can likely find each story in a multitude of formats. Even WikiLeaks summarizes the most significant information on their homepage. 

Because of the ridiculous amount of news sources available, where is the American outrage at the government censorship of the Wikileaks documents? Why is there simply no anger at the fact that the government continually censors this information, and likely censors far more? Our "free" society embraces censorship*. And no one gives a damn. 

When a news story appears which blatantly contradicts previous submissions, the American public should be up in arms with anger instead of complacently wasting their lives away. In America today, there is too little awareness of the issues facing us every day as the direct way these predicaments impact our future and the future of the nation. America is not a free nation. It is held hostage by its own ignorant inadequate-ability to care.

*I understand the requirement to censor certain documents which pertain to current or future military operations. WikiLeaks understand this as well, and operates accordingly. 

Campaigning 2010

Barack Obama's week would have been better spent gaining support for new initiatives in Congress, cultivating votes for bills, figuring a way to end wars, creating peace, and the host of other issues facing the country this year. Instead, President Obama's political agenda got in the way of his political oath. I did not vote for Barack Obama in 2008 to campaign, to advocate. I voted for him to do. This week, he did do ... a whole lot of nothing. 

Obama's rallies down the west coast drew tens of thousands of people and millions of dollars. This campaign was initiated to garner support for Democratic nominees in the midterm election, raise last minute funds, and ignite a rush of people to the polls this upcoming election day, which is largely considered to be a victory for Republicans. As it turns out, perhaps Obama should have stayed home and let former President Bill Clinton take the reins. 

Clinton is far more willing to enter into hostile environments, facing Republican combatants and advocating the support of Democratic candidates. Party leaders argue that Obama, despite falling approval ratings, is the best the party can offer to fire up voters, as he did his west coast sweep this past week. But the reality does not look that way. Clinton makes a significantly larger impact on the likeliness of a Republican, Independent, or Democratic voter to support a candidate with his endorsement. 

Clinton is not attached to the Democratic headquarters or any Washington establishment. He lends his support and voice of his accord and does so with gusto. Perhaps it is time the party allowed Clinton to fill shoes he hasn't had the chance to before. Eighteen years after his first run for the presidency, a host of heart and martial problems later, Clinton is still the best face to attach to any Democratic campaign. Clinton does not hold the same expectations as Obama. 

People who come out to see Obama remember the inspiring policy and idealistic speeches he gave in 2008. Though he still possess the same demeanor, the content has changed. It was tiring and nearly embarrassing to see a brilliant and powerful man stand on stage in front of 30,000 people of the University of Southern California Friday afternoon spend twenty minutes beating down the Republican party. Nothing substantial was said, nothing inspiring or unpredicted was done. Barack Obama does not have that ability in his current position because he is the President. Yes, he is the face of the party because of his position, but he should not be the voice. 

Democrats are losing the 2010 election because they do not have a voice with which to speak it. Bill Clinton can add spark, intelligence, and nostalgia to events while Obama creates excitement, with familiar promises and chants of "Yes We Can". This chant, however, is lost to many voters this election season because they believe the promise unfulfilled. Obama, still in office, has the ability to impact and create change in America and has not lived up to expectations of the individuals who have put him in office. Clinton, however, does not have the same expectations as he can no longer run for office. His political career is limited to inspiring voters and gathering momentum, and the Democratic party would be smart to let him run free with the momentum he can gather. Clinton's savvy, personality, and detachment from the current political situation make him a far better voice to lend to the Democratic cause than Barack Obama. 

So please, President Obama, get back in your metaphorical car and allow Bill Clinton to head the campaign season. The slogan selected this season is "Moving America Forward". It sure seems as though the country is on hold. Instead of campaigning and making angry and offended attacks on Republican politicians, you should get back to your job. 

Behind Closed Doors

Progression, especially in America, means moving forward toward a move developed or advanced stage. The United States employed progression in war machinery to unmanned aircrafts and remote controlled bombs. Housing structures, economic opportunity, and production continue to develop and change, malleable to the global village of today. Communications have developed from written letters sent over weeks at a time to the modern state of instant contact and twenty-four hour information cycles. Medicine provides new information about the spread of diseases, development of medicinal practices, and ways to prevent unwanted medical problems. This is a global village, and Americans should treat our planet as such. Ideas and policies that produce results in other countries should be replicated because now, we have the technology and ability to change the world around us into something better.

Something we should take from the surrounding global village is their approach to sex and sex education. The United Nations Population Fund shows that the United States is the only industrialized nation that has a high tendency of births, 53 in 1,000 teenagers[i]. As can be viewed in the world map (darker colors represent higher number of births), the closest following industrialized nation is the United Kingdom with twenty. The following are general information regarding the state of sex and sex education in America[ii]:

-       18 states allow physicians to contact parents of minors who access contraceptive services

-       Two states, Texas and Utah, require parental consent in state funded facilities.

-       One in five teens would have unprotected sex if clinics required parental notification.

-       70% would forego use of a clinic entirely. 

-       Roughly 750,000 women between 15-19 become pregnant each year.

-       In 2004, 16,000 girls aged 10-14 became pregnant.

-       In 2006, 27% or 200,420 teenage pregnancies ended in abortion.

-       As of January 2010, 34 states require parents when a minor seeks an abortion.

-       A decline in teen pregnancies occurred from 1991-2005, largely due to increased contraception use.

o   However, 2005, 2006, and 2007 all showed upticks in teen pregnancy.

o   This uptick coincided with President Bush’s enactment of abstinence only programs, where 80% of the 1.5 billion dollars allotted to sex education since 1982 was spent.

-       Of Sexually Transmitted Infections each year, 48% occur in the 15-24 year-old range. 

-       Rates of Chlamydia have increased rapidly over the years. 

-       America has the largest number of people living   with HIV of all industrialized nations[iii].

Conversely, in Sweden, sex education has been compulsory since 1975[iv]. Children begin their sexual education between seven and ten. The subject is not taught only in health class, but integrated in subjects such as geography and history, discussing moralities, emotional readiness, the role of genders, and additional issues related to sex. The frank discussion on sex has not encouraged Swedish children to loose their virginity younger. The average age of virginity loss has remained constant at seventeen[v]. Sweden has only seven births in every 1,000 teenagers. Sweden’s birth rate dropped 80% from 1975-1995.

The birth rate in the Netherlands is five of every 1,000 teenagers. Unicef’s studies of the Netherlands “have concluded that the underlying reason for success has been the combination of a relatively inclusive society with more open attitudes towards sex and sex education, including contraception.” Contraceptives “are not associated with shame or embarrassment” and “the media is willing to carry explicit messages” about contraception and sex target marketed to the youth[vi].

The United States (and the UK, for that matter), is not an inclusive society, but exclusive to say the least. Information is available to youth in a variety of formal locations, but access to these sources is limited due to embarrassment and secrecy imposed on retrieving items and information related to sex. Parents tend to shy away from talking about sex with their children. Schools are encouraged (encouraged!) not to teach comprehensive sex education to students, instead focusing on abstinence only or ignoring the subject entirely[vii]. America needs to change its perspective on sex for the sake of the youth, and of the culture of the country. A more inclusive network needs to be integrated into school systems, clinics, and information access points for children including the media in all forms, youth conversations, and parental involvement.

In 1995, 72% of female teens with sexual experience had received contraception information before having sex, compared with only 62% in 2002. Roughly nine percent of teens in 1995 received sex education focused on abstinence, without any information about birth control. This number rose to 21% of females and 24% of males in 2004. One-third of teens had not received any official information regarding contraception by 2002[viii].

Today, teachers are more likely to educate students on abstinence only than comprehensive sex education. In 1988, only one in fifty teachers taught abstinence as the singular path to avoid STIs and pregnancy. In 1999, this number rose to one in four educators. Over nine out of ten teachers believe students should be educated regarding contraception, but one in five believes restrictions imposed are hurting their students and one in four are banned from teaching contraception use. Thirty-five percent of schools are required to only teach abstinence[ix]. As displayed in the chart to the right, teachers are not teaching what they believe should be taught regarding sex education[x]. As for parents, 88% of parents of junior high school kids and 85% of parents of high school students believe that students should be informed on how to use and where to access contraception. One hundred percent of parents of junior high students and 98% of parents of high school students support the discussion of STDs, including HIV/AIDS, herpes, and others. This is not the actual case in schools. [xi]

There is no evidence that supports abstinence only education delaying sex in teenagers. In fact, a paper published in the British Medical Journals asserts, “abstinence training increases the rate of pregnancy[xii]”. Abstinence only does not change behavior of condom usage, number of sexual behaviors, pregnancy or STDs. However, abstinence only negatively impacts the sexual health of youth. Virginity pledges leave students 1/3 less likely use contraception when becoming sexually active. Pledgers have the same rate of STDs as peers and are more likely than peers to engage in oral and anal sex, both of which can still lead to the spread of STDs. In fact, in communities with a higher number of virginity pledgers, STD rates were significantly higher than in non virginity-pledging communities[xiii].

On the other hand,

Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active. These findings were underscored in “Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior,” issued by former Surgeon General David Satcher in June 2001[xiv].

Pediatrician Mark Shuster, chief of general pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Boston argues for parental involvement in the sexual education of youth. Open and repeated dialogue about the use of condoms, appropriate and healthy relationships, and orgasms will encourage children to be more honest in their sexual growth and knowledge. Shuster argues children would rather learn information from their parents, but more children educate themselves about sex by asking their peers, watching television, listening to music, watching music videos, and surfing the Internet[xv]. Media is impacting the educational levels of youth in this nation in a negative fashion[xvi].

The media has a direct impact on teen’s view of sex. The average child and teenager spend seven hours a day with media. This media includes, but is not limited to, television, advertisements, magazines, Internet, and media accessed on a cellular device. Studies have confirmed that pregnant teenagers view more sexually explicit content, such as soap operas, and do not believe soap opera stars would use birth control. Teenagers who view sexual media are more likely to engage in sex earlier than youth who did not view a high rate of sexual media. Advertisements regarding contraception often focus on the ability of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS instead of the effectiveness against preventing pregnancies. Hormonal options tend to stress the control of acne and ease of use instead of the ability to prevent unplanned pregnancies[xvii]. Plan B and other emergency contraceptives are note even advertised on television because of their explicit, singular purpose of preventing pregnancy. FOX and CBS have routinely declined advertisements for condoms that emphasize pregnancy prevention, but the amount of airtime dedicated to Viagra and Cialis only seems to increase[xviii].

As of 2001, the WB refused to air birth control pill advertisements, which should be interesting to anyone who has ever seen 90210, One Tree Hill or Gossip Girl. Over 75% of programs aired during prime time contain sexual content, but only 14% supplement these messages with information about responsibility or risks[xix]. From 1997 to 2001, the number of sexual images on television doubled. Then reality shows hit the airwaves, causing stir in the media and in the pants of the youth. Magazines and music videos are additional forms of media that contribute to the sexual knowledge of today’s youth. The Internet has made pornography a place for access for nearly every individual – and child – in America. A national poll of 1500 10-17 year olds found that almost half had become acquainted with online pornography in the preceding year. Twenty percent of teens and young adults have “sexted”, defined as sending nude pictures or videos of themselves over text message. The American Academy of Pediatrics argues that because so many sex education programs are abstinence only, coupled with many parents shying away from discussing sex, teens are turning to the media to learn about sex. Is this smart? The media is in no way abstinence only; the United States has “some of the most sexually suggestive media in the world[xx]”. The negative impact of sexually explicit media does not stop with clouding honest information about sex, but dives into corrupting self-esteem of youth, and contributing to (but not causing) eating disorders in teenage girls. The impact of these can also spill over into increasing negative sexual practices in youth.

As far as the media goes, shouldn’t Americans expect – or even demand – that schools inform children using a comprehensive sex education structure to directly combat the overly suggestive media? That is, of course, until society is sexually honest and inclusive, media changes advertisements to be less sexually suggestive and more sexually honest. Advertisements should not use sex to sell, but sell safe sex. Condoms are here to not only prevent AIDS/HIV (which is the singular accepted media message regarding condoms), but to prevent unplanned pregnancies and protect against other STDs and STIs. Plan B, hormone treatments, and other birth control forms have the same benefit. These methods do not encourage children to have sex, but allow kids to be prepared when they eventually make the decision to have sex. In this case, emotional readiness for eventually engaging in sex should also be addressed – in the media, in schools, and in the home.

Americans are not unintelligent about sex – they know that sex must happen, how it happens, and what the outcomes are. This must be true because there are over three hundred million people in this country, and seven billion in the world. These people did not all show up one day; they were all conceived through sex, carried, and born. But Americans are embarrassed and stubborn. Religion and personal belief should not reign in this realm; Logic and humanity should. Children younger than five begin wondering where babies come from. It is not at all uncommon for young kids to discover masturbation, differences in male and female bodies, and what it means to be male or female. Parents and educators should not stifle this curiosity, or children will (and have) turn to alternate sites of information, such as peers and the media. Parents should be supportive of their children’s curiosity about sex, and encourage honest questions and give honest answers. Children first want to speak to their parents about sex, but parents raised in an exclusive society may not be present an open and welcoming front to their children, especially on such a sensitive issue[xxi]. Studies have shown that when parents are honest with their opinions that differ from the media’s representation of an issue, the parental opinion can overturn the media’s message[xxii]. Beginning in the home, children will feel an inclusive environment, which should be replicated with support from their educational institutions, and confirmed in the media children view every day.

The media is currently an unreliable source for appropriate and honest displays of sexual interaction. This industry should be heavily encouraged and politically allowed to present sexual information in advertising and television programming, especially programs aimed at the youth of our nation. The stigma attached to discussing sex needs to be shattered, beginning with policy improvements in government regulations of school sex education programs and restrictions on advertisements of contraception.

As far as programming, has anyone seen The Secret Life of the American Teenager? This program is aimed at pre-teen and teenagers and is almost entirely about sex. The general premise is about a successful young girl who finds herself pregnant and unmarried, and decides to raise the baby with the father, sometimes as a couple, and sometimes as single parents. Her existence causes a stir in her community, her school and amongst her friends. As the episodes continue, honest and blunt conversations about the pill (Amy, the pregnant teen, starts on the pill after giving birth because she now understands that anything can happen when sex is involved), condoms, raising a baby as a teenager, having relationships as a single parent, when women and men believe they are emotionally ready to engage in sex, and other pressing issues facing the youth of today. While this program is aimed at an age group younger than I, and I have not viewed every episode aired, I have seen enough to become a fan of their presentation and treatment of sex. Media gurus should use this show as a guide for incorporating sexual messages into content, allowing big media to develop and establish an actual responsibility to younger viewers.

It is important for America to adopt the mindset that the youth of this nation grow up quickly. Childhood is short, and today is getting shorter[xxiii]. Children have cell phones, more access to media, music, and have a schedule for the activities in their lives. This “want” children have to grow up quickly is one that should be combated, at least in sexuality education, directly and sincerely. Children want to feel included, adult, and responsible. Parents, schools, and the media should provide children with the reinforcement and information that children can make their own decision about sex – if that decision is not to have sex, to use a condom, to go on the pill, to get an abortion, or to understand their own sexuality. Falling behind on the education of children is separating our nation from others, our children from the children of others. Sex should be talked about to avoid all the things that come with it: unplanned pregnancies, the spread of STDs and STIs, emotional instability, and inappropriate relationship building. These issues will not be resolved with ignorance, but with action.

Other countries, such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have progressed in their sexual scene not in inappropriateness, but in honesty and openness. A study of teenagers in these countries found that "In the countries studied, adolescents are valued, respected, and expected to act responsibly. Equally important, most adults trust adolescents to make responsible choices because they see young people as assets rather than problems. That message is conveyed in the media, in school texts, and in health care settings[xxii]." The media, parents, and school need to catch up to the American Academy of Pediatrics and change their conversations about sex. Whether from explicit and degrading to honest and responsible, or hidden and embarrassed to comprehensive and open, America is failing its citizens by failing to provide for information to meet the demands of youth. So let’s all talk to our children about sex. Everyone else is.

---

[i] Monbiot, George. "Joy of Sex Education." The Guardian. 11 May 2004. Web. 6 Oct. 2010. 

[ii] "Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health." Guttmacher Institute, Jan. 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 

[iii] "HIV and AIDS in America." AIDS & HIV Information from the AIDS Charity AVERT. Avert, 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. 

[iv] Monbiot, George. "Joy of Sex Education." The Guardian. 11 May 2004. Web. 6 Oct. 2010. 

[v] Toufexis, Anastasia, Ulla Plon, and Hiroko Tashiro. "Sex Has Many Accents." Time Magazine, 24 May 1993. Web. 7 Oct. 2010. 

[vi] Monbiot, George. "Joy of Sex Education." The Guardian. 11 May 2004. Web. 6 Oct. 2010. 

[vii] Dailard, Cynthia. "Sex Education: Politicians, Parents, Teachers and Teens." The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. Guttmacher Institute, Feb. 2001. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. 

[viii] "Facts on Sex Education in the United States." In Brief. Guttmacher Institute, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. 

[ix] ""Facts on Sex Education in the United States." In Brief. Guttmacher Institute, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. 

[x] Dailard, Cynthia. "Sex Education: Politicians, Parents, Teachers and Teens." The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. Guttmacher Institute, Feb. 2001. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. 

[xi] "On Our Side: Public Support for Comprehensive Sexuality Education." SIECUS, May 2005. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

[xii] Monbiot, George. "Joy of Sex Education." The Guardian. 11 May 2004. Web. 6 Oct. 2010. 

[xiii] "What the Research Says...Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs." Fact Sheet. SIECUS, Oct. 2007. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.

[xiv] "Facts on Sex Education in the United States." In Brief. Guttmacher Institute, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. 

[xv] Lyon, Lindsay. "Teens and Sex: How to Help Your Kids Dodge Pregnancy and STDs ." Family Health. US News & World Report, 10 Dec. 2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2010. 

[xvi] Shute, Nancy. "Children, Sex, and the Media: 3 Ways for Parents to Gain Control." On Parenting. US News & World Report, 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 2010. 

[xvii] Strasburger, Victor. "Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media." Pediatrics | Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics, 30 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

[xviii] Newman, Andrew. "Pigs With Cellphones, but No Condoms." Media & Advertising. New York Times, 18 June 2007. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

[xix] Strasburger, Victor. "Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media." Pediatrics | Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics, 30 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

[xx] Strasburger, Victor. "Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media." Pediatrics | Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics, 30 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

[xxi] Pike, Lynn. "Sexuality and Your Child: For Children Ages 3 to 7." Information from Human Environmental Sciences Extension. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri, Jan. 2001. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

[xxii] Strasburger, Victor. "Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media." Pediatrics | Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics, 30 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010.

[xxiii] "10 Is the New 15 as Kids Grow up Faster." Kids and Parenting. MSN, 26 Nov. 2006. Web. 16 Oct. 2010.