1 in 3 Teenagers Send 3,000+ Texts a Month

Prepare for an overload of Teenager Texting Statistics:

Just the Girls

• Girls typically send and receive 80 texts a day; boys send and receive 30.
• 86% of girls text message friends several times a day; 64% of boys do the same.
• 59% of girls call friends on their cell phone every day; 42% of boys call friends daily on their cell phone daily.
• 59% of girls text several times a day to “just say hello and chat”; 42% of boys do so.
• 84% of girls have long text exchanges on personal matters; 67% of boys have similar exchanges.
• 76% of girls text about school work, while 64% of boys text about school.

More interesting tidbits about Teens & Texting -

• A third of U.S. teenagers with cellphones send 100+ texts a day as texting has exploded to become the most popular means of communication for young people, according to new research.
• The Pew Research Center said that three-fourths of young people between the ages of 12 and 17 now own cellphones and of those that do, girls typically send or receive 80 text messages per day and boys, 30 per day.
• Study author Scott Campbell said focus groups conducted by Pew also offer insight into the subtleties of teen communication and culture, revealing for example that, while boys don’t typically use punctuation, for girls such nuances are critical.

“If a girl puts a period at the end of a text message (to another girl) then it comes across as she’s mad,” Campbell said, which explains the prevalence of smiley emoticons.

“They have these practices because they’ve learned that texts can lead to misunderstandings,” Lenhart said. “It’s a deliberate thing and it’s also part of a culture that’s interested in differentiating itself from adult culture.”

• The mobile phone has become the favored communication hub for the majority of American teens.
• Cell-phone texting has become the preferred channel of basic communication between teens and their friends, with cell calling a close second. Some 75% of 12-17 year-olds now own cell phones, up from 45% in 2004. Those phones have become indispensable tools in teen communication patterns. Fully 72% of all teens2 — or 88% of teen cell phone users — are text-messagers. That is a sharp rise from the 51% of teens who were texters in 2006. More than half of teens (54%) are daily texters.
• Among all teens, their frequency of use of texting has now overtaken the frequency of every other common form of interaction with their friends (see chart below).

How are Parent’s Responding to it All?

For parents, teens’ attachment to their phones is an area of conflict and regulation.

Parents exert some measure of control over their child’s mobile phone — limiting its uses, checking its contents and using it to monitor the whereabouts of their offspring. In fact, the latter is one of the primary reasons many parents acquire a cell phone for their child. However, with a few notable exceptions, these activities by parents do not seem to impact patterns of cell phone use by teens.

• 64% of parents look at the contents of their child’s cell phone and 62% of parents have taken away their child’s phone as punishment.
• 46% of parents limit the number of minutes their children may talk and 52% limit the times of day they may use the phone.
• 48% of parents use the phone to monitor their child’s location.
• Parents of 12-13 year-old girls are more likely to report most monitoring behavior.
• Limiting a child’s text messaging does relate to lower levels of various texting behaviors among teens. These teens are less likely to report regretting a text they sent, or to report sending sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images by text (also known as “sexting”).
• Teens whose parents limit their texting are also less likely to report being passengers in cars where the driver texted behind the wheel or used the phone in a dangerous manner while driving.

Cell Phone Uses Functionality

• 83% use their phones to take pictures.
• 64% share pictures with others.
• 60% play music on their phones.
• 46% play games on their phones.
• 32% exchange videos on their phones.
• 31% exchange instant messages on their phones.
• 27% go online for general purposes on their phones.
• 23% access social network sites on their phones.
• 21% use email on their phones.
• 11% purchase things via their phones.

Texting & Driving

• Half (52%) of cell-owning teens ages 16-17 say they have talked on a cell phone while driving. That translates into 43% of all American teens ages 16-17.
• 48% of all teens ages 12-17 say they have been in a car when the driver was texting.
• 40% say they have been in a car when the driver used a cell phone in a way that put themselves or others in danger.

What are your Thoughts?

That my friends, is a ton of statistical information. What is clear is that texting has become the favored form of communication for teenagers. 100-200 texts a day? Many will grow to have finger arthritis at that rate. But seriously, what are your thoughts in all this?

Though I see it can be beneficial in being able to stay constantly connected to friends, what I fear the most is that when teenagers grow up relying on less personal mediums that do not requires face-to-face interaction – it could have some negative effects in the way a teenager is able to relate to people in real life situations. It is so easy to text something, especially something seemingly uncomfortable, then to pick up a phone and call or *gasp*.. meeting up with someone. It creates a easy way to not experience the real work of building personal relationship. Just a thought. What do you think?

• Do you feel there is little harm in youths sending 100 texts a day?
• Do the benefits of constant connection outweigh the detriments of losing real social interaction?
• How many TEXTs do YOU send a day?
• If you don’t mind – kindly state your age (or age range) since I am going to go out on the limb to assume different age groups will think very differently about this issue.

Take the Poll: Come Back to See Results:

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Related posts:

1. Study Links Pregnancy with Watching Sexy TV Shows
2. Teenager Pregnancy Statistics – Good News?
3. Girl Self-Esteem & Image Issues & Parents

[Welcome Twitter Visitors - follow @CleanCutMedia Here!]

Sexualization of Girls Report by the APA

American Psychological Association came out with a report that shows girl as young as 4 and 5 years old are wearing new clothing styles such as push-up bras, thongs, mini skirts and other adult type outfits. Following the onslaught of media images girls see on TV, there is a changing standard born out of the pressure these images give to children to “get with it” or “fit in”. This report brings up the decrease in self-esteem and the increase in depressions and eating disorders linked to the increasing sexualization by the media. It also emphasizes the increasing underage sex rate.

Please don't let your daughters dress like this

Defining Sexualization of Girls

The APA taskforce on the Sexualization of Girls was formed in response to these public concerns. The APA taskforce also produced reports on the Violence in Mass Media, Advertising to Children, Video Games and Interactive Media among other similar reports. The “sexualization” process was defined having one of the following criterias.

• a persons’ value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
• a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy;
• a person is sexually objectified – that is, made into a thing for other’s sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
• sexuality is inappropriately imposed on a person

Examples of Sexualization in Advertising

Sexualization of Girls is pervasive throughout all media. The report outlines a few categories:

• Ads – Sketchers “Naughty & Nice” – featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop
• Dolls – Bratz Dolls – dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stocking, and feather boas
• Clothing – thongs sized for 7-10 year old, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”
• TV – Televised Fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls.

In addition, I find the most powerful media messages are often a lot more subtle. It is true that the constant barrage of images of pretty women with questionable outfits changes what we consider the “norm” in terms of how we define “beauty” and what is “appropriate” behavior. However just as powerful, is the message found in the lifestyles of sitcom characters. People love watching sitcoms. They become attached to characters and they see the characters in the context of “life”. When people watch their beloved characters living a promiscuous lifestyle or behaving in a sexualized way (using their beauty to charm guys, chasing after pretty woman, gawking at a pretty girl who walks by) we take in these “behaviors” as normal reactions and how things actually are in the real world. We learn what is normal through what we observe in carefully constructed sitcoms that milk on what sells and let’s face it – sex sells.

Interesting Studies of Sexualization in Report

List of some interesting studies covered in the report:
Note that these bulletpoints are not at all comprehensive.

• Sexualization inhibits Mental Capacity – Women who were in bathing suits trying to conduct a test did poorly then when wearing sweaters. Men found no such drop off. Thinking about the body and comparing to sexualized cultural ideals disrupted mental capacity.(Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge 1998; Gapinski, Brownsell, & LaFrance, 2003)
• Mental Health Problems - Researched links sexualization with 3 of the most common mental health problem of girls and woman: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression (Abramson & Valene, 1991; Durkin & Paxton, 2002)
• Diminishing Sexual Health – Self objectification linked directly with diminishing sexual health among adolescent girls measured by decreased condom use and sexual assertiveness. (Impett, Schooler, & Tomlman 2006). Negative effects such as shame due to sexualization may lead to sexual problems in adulthood (Brotto, Heiman & Tolman, in press)
• Sexual Stereotypes - Girls and young woman who more frequently consume or engage with mainstream media content offer stronger endorsements of sexual stereotypes that depict women as sexual objects (Ward, 2002; Zurbriggen & Morgan, 2006)
• Effects on Men – Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attractiveness make it difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or to fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner (Schooler & Ward, 2006)

Problem of Sexualization of Girls is Deep

The problem is not just the clothing they wear or even what girls are learning about sex – the problem is that girls at a young age are being taught how to approach relationships and how to approach intimacy. Media is teaching girls that being sexy and using their sexuality is important. Even Disney is responsible for using pretty, skinny woman characters using their beauty to get what they want. In the real world, many big name celebrities also are using their “sexuality” for all it’s worth.

Parents: Protect Your Child from Sexualization!

The ultimate message is that parents must protect their child. Some may think it’s cute to allow their young daughter to wear t-shirts that say stuff like “Don’t cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me” (the main line from a popular song) or allow your daughters to those “cute” mini skirts or short-shorts that have things written on their bottoms. To buy them make-up kits as a child and teach them to adorn themselves with beauty products. But it won’t be funny when those very children becoming sexuality active by middle school and learn to objectify themselves, placing their self-worth on how they look.

Download & Read the Full “Sexualization of Girls” Report Below

• Please let us know what other good pieces of statistics or information you find below in the comments section!
• Also what are your thoughts about the Sexualization of Girls? Do you see it as a big problem?
• What do you think we can do?

Summary: Executive Summary
Full Report: Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (PDF, 408K)

The proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harming girls’ self-image and healthy development. This report explores the cognitive and emotional consequences, consequences for mental and physical health, and impact on development of a healthy sexual self-image. – American Psychological Association

Follow Clean Cut Media @CleanCutMedia Twitter!

Related posts:

1. France to Regulate Airbrushed & Photoshopping Pictures
2. Study Links Pregnancy with Watching Sexy TV Shows
3. Unnaturally Beautiful Children: Image & Beauty

Nominees for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize includes a Russian human rights group, a Chinese dissident and of course the Internet.

Nobel Peace Prize Founder Alfred Nobel: Not Amused

Say what?

The Internet to Win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Yes, the Internet was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. This is the year after Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing at the time he won. It sparked a lot of debate on the value of the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the whether the committee should ever award a nomination based on “potential” rather than concrete actions. Before discussing the Internet, let’s note the other real-human candidates that are known at this time.

Svetlana Gannushkina – Russian Human Rights

One nomination is a Russian human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina and her group “Memorial”. Nominated by Erna Solberg, the head of Norway’s Conservative Party, this organization often leads the criticism against the Kremlin.

“These are people who are at the forefront of human rights and are putting their lives at risk for their work,” Solberg told The Associated Press.

Liu Xiaobo, Chinese Dissident

Kwame Anthony Appiah, president of the PEN American Center and a Princeton philosophy professor mentioned that he had nominated Liu Xiaobo. Liu Xiaobo is a Chinese dissident who was jailed by the government. Kwame Anthony Appiah says that he nominated Liu due to his “distinguished and principled leadership in the area of human and political rights and freedom of expression.” The Chinese government is obviously against this nomination.

“It would be completely wrong for the Nobel Prize committee to award the prize to such a person,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu

George Ryan, Former Illinois Governor

Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, nominated Former Illinois Governor George Ryan who is currently in jail for federal corruption charges. He was nominated for his campaign to abolish the death penalty.

Alfred Nobel: 2010 Winner.. What the heck is an Internet?

Would they really give the Nobel Peace Prize to the Internet?

Last year’s choice of Obama already stirred a great deal of controversy as Obama had just joined office and had no real accomplishments that warranted the prize. Some felt that it cheapened the Award.

This year, some speculate that due to the controversy the committee may select a conservative winner. Others say that last year is just more evidence that we can expect anything.

Alfred Nobel left simple, vague instructions on how to select winners in his 1895 will. It was to promote “fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies”. It was meant for people who promoted peace through what they did. This definition has since been broadened by the Nobel Committee to also include human rights activist and the protection of the environment. The Nobel Committee is appointed by Norway’s parliament.

Why mention Nobel Peace Prize on this Blog?

The mere fact that the Internet is being nominated for what is considered one of the greatest awards today speaks volumes about how central internet has become.

Plus the internet is a mixed bag. Yes the internet has brought upon great proliferation of information and news. Yes, it has connected people from all around the world. It has opened new doors and opportunities to collaborate. It has truly been amazing. However we also know the Internet has caused a whole new set of emotional issues. It has opened the world to wide spread pornography and other degrading material for easy access to all ages. It has caused more people to waste more time staring at a screen whether it be simply cruising the internet or playing online multi-player video games. Our children grow up watching 8 hours of screen time a day, a huge chunk of that watching videos or tv shows on the Internet. 8 hours per day. There are many studies and professionals who mourn at the influence of media on our children’s development.

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Process

Before getting carried away, let’s remember that numerous people are nominated every year for the Nobel Peace Prize. The information regarding who was nominated is not released by the Nobel Foundation until 50 years after the prize, but some information is made public by the ones who nominate the candidate. Yes the Internet was nominated, but in the past so was Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and believe it or not Adolf Hitler, thought the latter was done out of protest to the nomination of a different candidate. Meanwhile candidates like Mohandas Gandhi was nominated several times but never awarded.

• What is your first gut reaction to this news?
• What do you think? Does the Internet warrant consideration?
• Do you think if the Internet wins the Nobel Peace Prize, it cheapens the Prize?
• Did the Internet bring about Peace in some way?

Related posts:

1. Google stands against Chinese Internet Censorship
2. South Korea: World’s Fastest Internet, PC Gaming Capital
3. Internet Growth Map Visuals 1998-2008

Tim Tebow’s Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

Have you ever heard of a viral video that no one has seen? A group called Focus on the Family has shot a pro-life spot featuring the college superstar and former Heisman Winner Tim Tebow. The spot will star Tim Tebow and his mother who will discuss how she went against the doctor’s advice to abort her son due to a life threatening infection. After contracting a dangerous infection during a mission trip to the Philippines, doctors recommended she terminate her pregnancy, fearing she might die during childbirth. They named their son “Timmy” who later was known to the world as Tim Tebow, the University of Florida’s Quarterback who led his team to national championships in 2006 and 2008. He also won the Heisman Trophy in 2007.

Tim Tebow is the biggest star in college football, if not considered one of the greatest college football player to ever play at that level. He is also known for being born in the Philippines while his parents were in the mission field and still frequently joins his father on mission trips there. He also ministers to prisoners during the off-season.

As soon as this news broke out, women’s group started to ask CBS to drop the ad. So far CBS has declined their request.

“I know some people won’t agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe… that’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.” – Tim Tebow

CBS’s Stance on Controversial Super Bowl Ads

CBS has run into similar controversies before. Back in 2004, CBS had rejected a Super Bowl ad from a “liberal-leaning United Church of Christ” that highlighted their welcoming stance towards gays and others who felt shunned by conservative chruches. This ad would be one of the first advocacy ads accepted by CBS during the big game.

When CBS was asked to comment on their current stance of allowing this ad to air, they replied that their past stance of rejecting any controversial ad as they saw fit “did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms”.

“We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms.” – Dana McClintock CBS Spokesperson

Growing Discussions on Facebook and Twitter

One of the interesting developments, is with the rise of social media, this topic has resulted in tons of discussions and activities in sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Both sides have started to form groups, throwing their support for or against this ad. Below are the largest growing groups on Facebook:

Americans United for Life Action – Facebook Group Supporting Ad (43,500+ Members)
Facebook Group Supporting Ad 2 (31,2001+ Members)
Facebook Group Against Ad (7200+ Members)

Twitter Activity on "Tebow" Search since News Broke

Online buzz is continuing to ramp up and will inevitably become larger as Super Bowl Sunday nears. The question is what will CBS do? Freedom of Speech? Avoid the Controversy? One thing that is certain – once it airs, it will spread quickly across the web and there will be numerous discussions over this video spot. The discussions are already heating up.

What do you think? Should CBS Air the Super Bowl Ad?

• Should CBS air this ad?
• Should CBS have aired the ad from 2004?
• Should controversial ads be allowed to air? Why or Why not?

Another interesting point noted by a commenter on the web:

• Since the mother made her “choice” would this still fall under a celebration of “pro-choice” or is that at this point just semantics and “pro-choice” is just support for abortion? (this is assuming the ad doesn’t attack the idea of choice)

Share your thoughts! We’d like to know.

Related posts:

1. Influence of Media & Advertising in Our View of Life
2. Google Changes stance on Abortion Keywords
3. Who Regulates Online Advertising & Marketing to Children?

Want to share this old, but great article from the Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin. Very interesting points about how media cuts into many issues such as obesity, eating disorders, attention disorders, violence, sex, and drug use and how Medical Professionals need to deeply consider how much media has an influence on the development of these.

As this fairly long article is well written, I will simply excerpt huge chunks of it. I’ve copied out significant paragraphs and bolded the main points. Hope it is helpful. Full Article Here.

The most important thing we’ve learned,
So far as children are concerned,
Is never, never, never let
Them near your television set…
They sit and stare and stare and sit
Until they’re hypnotized by it…
Did you ever wonder exactly what
This does to your beloved tot?
His brain becomes as soft as cheese
His powers of thinking rust and freeze
He cannot think—he only sees!
—the Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

TV Media on Child Development

The Oompa-Loompas’ cautionary song about the hypnotic effects of television on children may have seemed alarmist in 1964 when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was first published, but now its lyrics seem almost understated. In Roald Dahl’s story, television addict Mike Teavee pays for his obsession by getting shrunk to the size of an actor on a television screen. Dahl exaggerates the effects of excessive viewing, but for children glued to media screens today, the consequences may be more insidious and just as hazardous.
Decades of research have established that television and other screen media—movies, the Internet, and video games—constitute a powerful environmental influence on children’s health and development, according to the Center on Media and Child Health at Children’s Hospital Boston. American children aged 8 to 18 spend an average of 6 hours and 21 minutes daily using media—more time than they spend in school or with their parents. And the risks of so much time spent in thrall to their screens are serious.

More than 2,200 studies have linked media use and aggressive behavior. By age 18, a child will, on average, have witnessed 200,000 acts of violence, including 18,000 murders. Children’s programs—shows that one would expect to be free of violence—average 14 violent acts per hour, 8 more than adult programs. For adolescents, the influence of violence in media may even prove fatal: the top three causes of death among 15- to 19-year-olds all involve accidental or intended violence.

Media’s Influence on the Mind

Like the Oompa-Loompas, Michael Rich ’91 understands the powerful clutch media can have on the mind, especially the mind of a child. So well has research documented the connection between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior, he says, that the correlation is “stronger than those linking calcium with bone density and passive smoke with lung cancer.”

Rich, a pediatrician and former filmmaker who worked for two years with the famed Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, directs the Center on Media and Child Health. Much of Rich’s research has focused on the dangers stemming from the violence depicted on television and, more recently, the violence that permeates video games.

One 2004 study by another group compared the physiological responses of adults playing four different video games, two with storylines and two without. The researchers found that story-based video games led to significantly more character and game identification and increased physiological arousal. Other studies have documented how such physiological responses can lead to aggression. “If you watch a violent show and a half hour later go to a store where someone cuts you in line, you’re more likely to respond aggressively,” Rich says. “Over time, small incidents accumulate and form patterns of violent behavior. What matters is that you learn from what you experience.”

And by learning, he means the hardwired kind. “Brain mapping indicates that media violence is processed along primitive survival pathways and stored in long-term memory,” he says. In other words, we embed media violence deeply in our brains. In work with functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, Rich’s team has discovered that “the brain regions activated when viewing violence onscreen are the same ones that light up when those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder relive their traumas.”

Alvin Poussaint, founder of the Media Center at the Judge Baker Children’s Center and an HMS professor of psychiatry, says that the way children learn from television can cause another form of lasting harm. “If children watch ‘edutainment’—shows that teach through song and dance—they begin to associate learning with an entertainment format and expect that format when they go to school,” he says. “But teachers aren’t going to sing and dance for them. So then children complain that school is boring. Compared to the fast-paced, exciting shows they’re used to on television, it is boring. Nothing will meet that standard. Television constantly ups the ante.”

Some of the newest research suggests that television and the multimedia world in which children simultaneously watch MTV, listen to iPods, and chat on the Internet may be contributing to the increase in diagnoses of attention disorders. Rich believes that fMRI studies on attention, which are only now just getting started, will help establish whether a connection exists.

Certainly, researchers have found a correlation between media use and reading. “Kids who watch the most television don’t do as well in school,” says Poussaint. “Television is not the best way to learn; it’s too passive and noninteractive.” A 2003 study found that toddlers and older children with screen media in their bedrooms learned to read later and read less than those with no screen media in their rooms. The Oompa-Loompas begin to seem like prophets.

Media can be a Good Influence on Development

John Livingstone ’58, a pediatric psychiatrist at McLean Hospital, an HMS assistant professor, and a consultant to the television industry, is campaigning for PBS to embed emotional literacy in its new programming and for the cable industry to embrace health-risk standards. “Television shows can model positive ways for handling feelings,” he says. “Social learning research shows that when children watch likable characters struggling with decision-making, they can learn better impulse control, especially when they see the realistic results of the choices the characters made.”

The power of prosocial programming can be so strong, Livingstone adds, that even violent content—when portrayed realistically and in the context of outcomes—can be beneficial. “If it’s handled well,” he says, “violence with consequences can promote socially responsible behavior. Let’s say a show features a gang of kids on a street. In one scenario, a gang member remarks that a passing kid looks like a wimp and says, ‘Let’s punch him out.’ The group beats him up.”

“In a better scenario,” Livingstone says, “the gang member remarks that a passing kid looks like a wimp and says, ‘Let’s punch him out.’ But this time a likable gang member speaks up against the plan, then another and another. Half the group takes off in protest. The other half beats the boy up and later faces legal and parental repercussions. The program could retain its dramatic tension while modeling a socially acceptable option in the teenager’s world.”

Change Media Intake, Change Everything Else

Strasburger, who researches media’s effects on children and adolescents at the University of New Mexico, also wants to promote media literacy, but finds it difficult to convince physicians, parents, and teachers that the issue should take priority. “When I consulted with the National Parent Teacher Association,” he says, “its leaders had a hundred concerns on their list, and media literacy was nowhere near the top. They wanted to talk about obesity, eating disorders, and bullying, but didn’t realize that media affect all those problems. Many parents and teachers believe media have a minor influence. That might have been true when they were growing up, but it sure isn’t the case now.”

Poussaint adds that parents should play an important role. “Parents need to watch television with their children and explain what’s make-believe,” he says. “Commercials are especially insidious, because children don’t begin to understand the persuasive intent of ads until about age eight. Commercials also pit children against parents. Television tells children a particular candy bar will make them happy and, when parents refuse to allow it, the children see their parents as denying them this happiness.”

Strasburger says some of this work can be done in school. “We need to teach kids skepticism about advertising and television programming,” he says. “They should understand, for example, why a commercial or show airs when it does. We already have a system in place for teaching media literacy: sex and drug education programs in schools. Both could incorporate media literacy, and teachers could take the lead.”

Medical Professionals should lead the Charge Against Media

Studies have suggested that 10 to 30 percent of violence in society can be chalked up to the impact of media violence, says Strasburger. “That’s a nice big chunk we can do something about.” And by “we,” he means doctors.

Until improved high-tech approaches go live, physicians can help children develop healthy media habits through a low-tech approach: conversation. “Physicians aren’t saying enough to parents,” Rich says. “We need to educate doctors to educate parents that media matter.” He adds that many parents don’t know that the American Academy of Pediatrics has established guidelines that recommend no televisions, video games, or Internet access in children’s bedrooms; no screen media for children under two; and no more than two hours of educational television a day for children older than two.

If most parents don’t know the recommendations, they certainly don’t know the reasoning behind them. “In the first 18 to 24 months of life, the brain is developing rapidly, primarily in response to environmental stimuli,” Strasburger says. “Stimuli that optimize the development of brain architecture include personal interactions, motor skills practice, and problem-solving activities. And the best way to teach these skills is not through screen media.”

“Physicians need to encourage parents to interact with kids while watching television,” Poussaint says. “Parents come home from work and turn on the news without thinking. Kids see images of the war in Iraq without anyone addressing their fears.”

“What disturbs me most is that my fellow pediatricians don’t seem to get it,” Strasburger says. “Media cut across every public health concern that they have for their patients: obesity, eating disorders, attention disorders, violence, sex, and drug use. Yet while they worry about obesity, pediatricians don’t realize the significance of media. The reality is that media play a huge role in determining if a child will become overweight; obesity has been linked conclusively with television ads and time spent in front of a screen.” Strasburger discovered that his own heavier patients watch three to five hours of television a day. When they take him up on his suggestion to adopt a dog and walk it one hour each day, they lose significant weight.

But change can happen only when doctors perceive content and misuse of media as a root health problem, Strasburger says. “I have several theories about why pediatricians put media at the bottom of their lists,” he says. “They may not watch much television themselves. They may know television from a kinder, gentler era. Or possibly they may be so focused on helmet use, immunizations, and developmental milestones they can’t squeeze another discussion into an examination. Of course, they may just be tired of being browbeaten by academics like me.”

Parents, who themselves are likely desensitized to violence through media, may also feel browbeaten—by the challenges of careers, caretaking, and commuting. But counsel from a trusted source—a pediatrician—could make a big difference, Strasburger says. “Giving such advice can take less than a minute. Ask just two questions: How much screen time does your child have per day? And, is there a television set in your child’s bedroom?”

What are your thoughts?

I find this article fascinating. This article attempts to raise greater awareness on how much media has an impact on many pedatric health and social issues. It urges medical professions to look at the data available, consider all the evidence and not be afraid to think outside the box by tackling one of roots of these issues: media.

• What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree?
• Which section struck you the most?
• In your experience, have you seen the influence of media play out your life? Have stories to share?

Related posts:

1. Sexualization of Girls in Media – New Report
2. Children Media Consumption: 7.5 Hours a Day
3. The Secret Life of the American Teenager – Sex Obsessed ABC “Family Channel”

The sex-ed lobby has always claimed it was all about health—teaching kids how to stay safe. But in reality, their goal was not preventing disease, pregnancy, and emotional distress. It’s about indoctrinating them into a radical ideology—sexual freedom….

What’s the result of this [sex education] teaching? One in four American girls now has a sexually transmitted disease. – Breakpoint

• Are sex educators not providing the latest medical facts?
• Are we really missing out on scientific facts about our sexual health?
• What are the latest findings on the effects of living with sexual freedom?
• What are those scientific facts! Am I in danger?

Dr. Miriam Grossman vs. Sex Educators

Dr. Miriam Grossman M.D, a board certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, recently wrote a book called “You’re Teaching My Kid What?”.

She writes about the fact that sex educators as well as the SIECUS [Sexual Information and Education Council of the US], the organization that sets the standard for sex education, are not presenting the medical facts thus rather than empowering people to make the right decisions, they are giving them a false sense of security with disastrous results.

One example is how sex educators urge kids to avoid pregnancy by engaging in oral sex. But what about the medical facts?

- HPV can be transmitted during oral sex, and can cause cancers of the throat.

- If kids interact with five or more partners, they increase their risk [of oral cancer] “a whopping 250 percent.” And yet sex educators, Grossman writes, portray this activity as safe and normal.

Dr. Miriam’s Goal: Educate the Youth to the Medical Truths of Sexual Freedom

Her aim is simple: “As a physician who has spent hundreds of hours with young people with sexually transmitted infections, I’m on a one-woman mission to expose the falsehood of those claims.” What claim? Planned Parenthood, one of the biggest names in sex education says on their homepage “We deliver comprehensive and medically accurate information that empowers women, men, teens, and families to make informed choices and lead healthy lives.”

“I’m a doctor who is tired of seeing a steady stream of young people come through my office, casualties of the worldview that places sexual freedom before sexual health. The only power I have to fight this calamity is the power of the pen. While the nation struggles over issues related to health, and stands on the verge of supporting organizations like SIECUS with millions of tax dollars, does someone with authority have the courage to stand up and put an end to this fiasco?” – Dr. Miriam Grossman M.D.

SIECUS Undermines Parents with Different Messages

She has also published articles about how SIECUS adopts different positions depending on the audience. In public forums and statements, they tell the parents that their primary concern is with the child’s health. SIECUS says they tell the teens that it’s best for them to delay sexual activity. However in the material for teens, the message is about sexual rights and the freedom to make their own decisions at any age, regardless of what adults think.

An example of this is All About Sex. This pamphlet is the first resource suggested to young individuals on the SIECUS site. The piece begins by telling kids that everyone has their own way of expressing their sexuality, then it goes on to for eight pages discussing the a their “sexual rights”.

Read what it says:

“Every human being has basic rights. Still, adults may say and do things that make young people feel like they don’t have rights. It’s important for you to know your rights so that you can stand up for yourself when necessary.”

She continues: “At every point in your life, you can choose if and how to express your sexuality.” Later: “It is up to you to determine how much risk you are willing to take.” And: “Many teens choose to be sexually active and many choose not to. You have the right to decide exactly what behaviors, if any, you are comfortable participating in….”

Basically, it’s a green light, telling kids it is all up to them to chose how much they’d like to risk. A far cry from promoting the delay in sexual activity message they promise to parents.

Her statement is simple, sex educators are not providing the medical facts that are absolutely neccessary for a child (and parents) to make the right decisions. Rather by avoiding all the hard data, sex educators are simply promoting the social agenda of sexual freedom and when sexual freedom reigns, sexual health suffers.

Breakpoint Commentary on Sex Education Messaging

Below is a recent post from Breakpoint.

Are you squeamish when it comes to talking with your kids about sex? Well, you’d better get to them fast, before they’re exposed to sex educators in school.

Dr. Miriam Grossman was lecturing at a Philadelphia college about sexual health. The students had invited her to talk about something they’d never encountered in all their years of sex education—the dangers of non-marital sex.

Grossman will never forget the girl who told her that everything she’d said about sexually transmitted diseases was correct. “I always used condoms, but I got HPV anyway, and it’s one of the high-risk types,” the girl said. If the infection did not go away, she had a 40 percent chance of developing cervical cancer.

In her new book, You’re Teaching My Child What?, Grossman says she felt “a wave of sorrow” at the girl’s words—but she was hardly surprised. The girl was yet another victim of a destructive philosophy that has been forced on America’s youth under the guise of “sex education.”

The sex-ed lobby has always claimed it was all about health—teaching kids how to stay safe. But in reality, their goal was not preventing disease, pregnancy, and emotional distress. It’s about indoctrinating them into a radical ideology—sexual freedom. Kids are urged to consult websites that urge them to begin “exploring” their sexuality at a young age, insist that sex at any age is a right, and encourage them to engage in bizarre and dangerous activities.

The findings of science are not allowed to interfere with these radical teachings. If new research proves the dangers of the behaviors they advocate, the so-called “sexperts” simply ignore it.

For instance, sex educators urge kids to avoid pregnancy by engaging in oral sex. But two years ago, cancer specialists found that oral cancers were on the rise among young adults, who used to be at very low risk if they did not smoke or drink.

If kids interact with five or more partners, they increase their risk “a whopping 250 percent.” And yet sex educators, Grossman writes, portray this activity as safe and normal.

What’s the result of this teaching? One in four American girls now has a sexually transmitted disease.

What do the sex educators say about this? They shrug it off, telling kids that “most” people contract an STD in their lifetime—as if such a thing were normal and unavoidable.

This ought to make us really angry. The “comprehensive” sex educators have done enormous harm to our kids. They keep right on teaching kids that life is a sexual-free-for-all with no consequences as long as they use so-called “protection.”

Read Dr. Miriam Grossman’s book, You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child… And then, share it with the teens in your life. They need to know the truth—that while STDs, cervical cancer, and heartbreak may be increasingly common, they are no more “normal” than swine flu.

- Breakpoint

Here is a link to Amazon for the book. You can read some reader reviews there.

You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child

Endorsements of “Teaching My Child What?” – From Amazon

“Parents, this book is a gift from a gutsy doctor who puts your child first. Dr. Miriam Grossman examines what the powerful sex education industry teaches your child, and what she finds will make your hair curl. Do you have a child in school? With this book you’ll understand the destructive agendas of so-called `scientific’ sex ed, then you’ll learn what your kids really need to know: politically incorrect truths that blow those agendas out of the water. Finally, a doctor who’s brave enough to break ranks and call foul. We owe her a standing ovation.”
–Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Author and host of a nationally syndicated radio program

“Dr. Miriam Grossman is a bright, bold, but solitary beacon revealing the avalanche of faulty sex education and counseling that is endangering the physical and emotional health of our young people and corrupting their futures. This is an alert that all parents must read, and an antidote that our young people can use against those so-called experts who would indoctrinate them.”
–Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D. Former President, American Psychological Association

“The sex education lobby systematically undermines traditional morality and aggressively promotes an ideology of sexual license while pretending to be concerned only with the health and safety of young people. The sad truth is that by subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) encouraging and often facilitating adolescent sexual activity, the sex ed establishment jeopardizes the physical and emotional health of children as well as their moral and spiritual welfare. It is high time that someone stepped forward to expose much contemporary sex education for what it is, namely, a series of catechism classes for the pseudo-religion of sexual liberationism. Dr. Miriam Grossman has done just that. This bold and brilliant physician has done the nation and its children a great service. Everyone who believes, as I do, in the importance of childhood innocence and safety, and the sound moral development of young men and women, owes Dr. Grossman an enormous debt.”
–Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University

Sample Reader Reviews of “Teaching My Child What?” – From Amazon

Must Read book for Parents

This is the first review I have ever written for a book. Never have I ever been so compelled to try and get the word out on an issue. This book MUST be read by every parent in the United States. Sex Ed in our schools must be updated. IT is false.

I heard Dr. Grossman interviewed on the radio. I was so compelled by her intellect and knowledge of the subject of Sexual Education in the public schools, that I purchased her book. This was a first for me. You see, I have three teenage children, two in college, and one in high school. I thought that it was high time I took a look at what their peers are being taught.

Dr. Grossman lays out, systematically and thoroughly in this book, the inaccuracies and outright lies of what is being taught by SIECUS (The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), Planned Parenthood, and Advocates for Youth in our schools, and on websites that are recommended by our schools in the Sex Ed programs and accompanying pamphlets and brochures handed out in the nurses office or during the class.

This book starts with showing who is exactly teaching your children. She then covers the topic of the differences between boys and girls, and the false information taught in the SE classes. Next, she talks about the abstinence/protection/do it if it feels right issue, the doctor’s responsibility, the plagues of incurable sexually transmitted infections, gender identity and homosexual/heterosexual/transgender/etc. issues. All of these topics are taught to our children in the public schools. If a child doesn’t go to a public school, not to worry, most of this information is also available on line from the three above mentioned organizations and their websites, plus the sites that they link from within their sites. No child in the United States is truly exempt from this teaching.

The text is 188 pages with 48 pages of footnotes in much smaller font than the text. She amazed me with the research, and study that went into this book. In the introduction, I began to verify each footnote sited. By the end of the introduction, which contained 31 footnotes for 14 pages of text, I was convinced that she had done her homework and had completely studied and verified her claims. She makes a statement, and then shows you with easy to verify footnotes that prove what she is saying is true. Many footnotes are easily found online.

The book is filled with personal stories of her medical practice at university medical centers, as well as others that she has gleaned elsewhere.

She convinced me that the SE classes are being taught with faulty, outdated data, and sometimes even unscientific data. She presents in this book, the most up to date data and research available. One table that she presents as an appendix at the end of the book is dated June 19, 2009. This is current information. This is valid information.

Our children are not being given the most up to date, accurate information in their sex ed classes. They are being misled about things such as condom failure rates, percentages of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), the fact that the younger you begin sexual activity, the more likely you are to become infected with an STI. This book needs to be read by you and your children if you deem it appropriate for their age. I would never recommend a parent give this book to your children to read before you have pre-viewed it. It is a book that we have discussed at great length in our home, but I would not allow younger children near it. It is graphic when it needs to be. We are talking about sex here, so a parent must use their own discretion when teaching the facts in this book to their children.

Dr. Grossman counters sex ed lies with hard science,

Wow! Just as the subtitle of the book states, Dr. Grossman exposes lies – sex education lies – and that they harm our children. She asserts that the health of our youth are in a `911 emergency’ state and explains how the sex education industry priorities are detrimental to our children. She counters with the biological and neurological truths that should be part of sex education messages they receive.

“You’re Teaching My Child What?” is a must read for any adults who care about and are involved in the lives of young people. Check out the references Dr. Grossman has highlighted as examples of teen `health’ sites – ones that are endorsing risky, bizarre and fringe behaviors. Learn why she believes sexuality educators “send these kids into a minefield”. Don’t assume her message is simply about abstaining from sex, as her approach focuses on biological truths and hard science.

Most importantly, Dr. Grossman guides parents, educators and health providers as to the message we should be conveying to our youth. She includes practical suggestions for parents “to optimize your child’s chance for a life of healthy sexuality”. One can gain knowledge to counter destructive messages your child is receiving and be encouraged to provide the truths they deserve to hear.

As a mother who has checked things out enough to be alarmed and shocked at the sexuality indoctrination, I am grateful to Dr. Grossman for her commitment and boldness. I highly recommend “You’re Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child”.

See more reviews on Amazon:
You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child

• What do you think? Comment Below!

Related posts:

1. Study Links Pregnancy with Watching Sexy TV Shows
2. Who Regulates Online Advertising & Marketing to Children?
3. Media’s Impact on Sexual Freedom

AMP UP / Pepsi Iphone App “Before You Score” Gone too Far?

Pepsi has been known as a company not afraid to push limits and try out new innovative methods in reaching it’s potential consumers. Have they gone to far?

“Before You Score” AMP UP

AMP’s latest attempt to utilize social media became a huge controversial issue. AMP is an energy drink company owned by Pepsi. They have always utilized guy-centric advertising focusing on extreme sports and women. Their marketing approach is a tamer version of another company called AXE who uses extremely risque and degrading advertising.

AMP launched an Iphone app called “before you score” that helps men score with women. Within the application itself, the app breaks down women into 24 categories and provides various pickup lines and suggestions. Examples of such categories are “Rebound Girl”, “Twins”, “Foreign Exchange Student” and even “Married”. Depending on the type of person she is, it is suggesting specific things to say as well can be used to find specific places to eat. The whole point is to convince the subject that you share her interest with the overall goal of getting them into bed. The iTunes store has a description that says “roadmap to success with your favorite kinds of women”.

Let’s think about the culture pepsi is promoting here.

• Utilize woman’s naivety
• Rebound Girl? Get them while they are vulnerable
• Married? – Speaks for itself
• All you need is the right words and moves
• It is normal and fun to try to seduce and take advantage of woman.
• The point of these encounters is to “score”
• “Helps getting success with favorite kinds of women.” – It isn’t to “connect” with a WOMAN, but “success” with various women?

The stance by Pepsi and their supporters is simple – AMP was just doing something humorous and it shouldn’t be taken seriously. However I would argue that it is exactly these type of things that influence what we view to be the norm of culture. When we watch promiscuous lifestyles on TV, watch racy music videos, suggestive commercials and see an app that tells you, it’s fun to pick up woman – yes it can be humorous but at what cost? There was a time a company would not even dream of producing such an app but the media has helped shift the culture dramatically over the past 10 years. It is possible for a person to play with it just for it’s humor value – but the kind of culture Pepsi is highlighting is simply degrading to woman. It is a testament to our current culture that there would even be a debate an app about trying to sleep with women is acceptable.

Don’t just Score. Brag about it! Tell Your Friends

But it doesn’t stop there. It also has a feature that allows the user to brag about their successes over Email, Facebook or Twitter. It is literally a “brag” button. The app’s description says to “flaunt” your conquests and create a “Brag List” they have gotten “lucky” with. Share your conquest with all your friends. Let’s further review the message:

• Women are objects of conquest
• “Scoring” is good, something to be proud about
• It’s ok to brag about your sex life, forget how it affects the other person

AMP Pepsi clearly was hoping to create a lot buzz – it did. There were a fair share of people who enjoyed the app, but many who were upset and offended. AMP ended up apologizing for the App – “if” it offended anybody. However they did not pull down the app until many days later after more pressure had mounted.

Various Responses to Pepsi AMP Iphone App

Well, Pepsi got what it wanted. Everyone across the online world and the offline started to discuss whether Pepsi had gone too far. Far more interesting then the app itself, was the varying responses. It really clues us into the worldview of our current culture.

Below are some comments from various sites.
Think about what kind of worldview the commentors have about the culture they live in and what they consider to be is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.

Amp UP “Before You Score” was a Bad Idea

“[Apology?] too late for that! But honestly, the world considers this type of behavior normal.”

“What a bunch of fools. Even their twitter ‘apology’ uses the crass phrase ‘… pick up women.’ when they could have chosen something more appropriate like “… connect with a woman.”

It’s not a full apology when you use the word “if,” blame the offended for being offended, and continue the activity for which you are apologizing.

Does anyone notice, everyone is condemning the lack of tact in their apology but not the app itself? I also agree the apology was very general and AMP never took ownership over what they did. They pointed at the people offended and simply said sorry if it happen to offend you. Here is a little more transparent translation: “We don’t think what we did was wrong, we were just trying to be funny, but hey if your the type to get offended by this, then sorry to you, but seriously we still don’t think what we did was wrong”

But how come so few people are not criticizing the App and simply stating the fact that it is WRONG and degrading to women?

Let’s see some more responses below – it’ll give you a clearer picture.

What is the big deal? It’s humor, don’t be so serious!

“The app is clearly good taste – the items on the demo video show it’s about conversation starters. If you wanna get hung up about a person’s desire to have sex, perhaps you should ponder how you came into being. For now, if you’re offended, accept the apology. If you’re not offended, game on.”

“Everyone just likes to complain about stuff, but no one takes humor in anything anymore. We’ve become this Politically Correct bunch of rejects…”

“I agree with your assessment of this whole situation. I don’t think anybody was REALLY gonna use this app seriously. It was just something that you could, liek, joke with your friends about.”

“When I found out about it this morning, I just started LOL-ing. Now that I see that there’s such offense to the whole thing, I’m in shock”

“People are taking it all too seriously as AMP has said themselves it was intended to be humorous, not an application with a serious use. People saying things like ‘these lines would never work’ completely missed the point.”

“The app was crude and mysogynistic to be sure. But from what I read it was also damn funny.”

“Everyone needs to lighten up and suck it up. Who promised you a life without offense anyway?”

So wait – It was meant to be humorous, so that makes it ok? It is ok to produce applications that are degrading to women, that clearly offended a lot of people – because hey, the “intentions” were to be humorous?

That line of thought is a very dangerous way of thinking. Something being humorous does not make it okay to do. It is the same reason other controversial apps like “baby shaker” “iSnort”, “iBoobs”, “Dope Wars” “Hottest Girls” are simply wrong – and I believe were all rightfully removed. Shaking a baby for fun, pretending to snort drugs, playing a game of selling and buying drugs, looking at pictures of woman’s breast or bodies are all wrong regardless of whether you think it’s funny. A person may like the app, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. If a person truly believes in the statement that something is acceptable as long as the intention was humor or fun then the person must be able to defend that statement for situations you don’t like.

This is the same kind of reasoning that is used by media to produces immoral or racy shows simply because it brings in the ratings and the revenue. Forget the negative influences on culture and children, people like it and people think it’s fun!

It’s a Smart Marketing Move – Good for them!

“Love the transparency here. Honestly, it’s the first time in a while that I’ve heard anything about Pepsi so kudos for pushing the envelope and coming up with a creative concept that people are talking about…”

“I think the app fit the demographic perfect – I’m surprised they would issue an apology….”

They can’t pull the app yet. It hasn’t completed the mission. This thing was staged long before release. “There is no such thing as bad publicity”. Well to modernize the phrase there is no such thing as bad social media.

Pepsi can play the apologetic parent by coming out and saying they forced Amp to pull the app. Lots of buzz then kudos for “doing the right thing”. They are going to say they wanted to give Amp room to develop it’s own marketing but this is simply going to far.

I would say this is the most reasonable response I’ve read yet, Paul. I have to agree that I thought it just looked like a well crafted foray into “negative” publicity. It looks like a perfect example of using internet link baiting strategies (controversy), for publicity and it is clearly working like a charm.

Depending on the response, Pepsi can play the hero or AMP the villian or either could take the victim’s role, depending on which direction they decide to go next. Honestly, and this is the best part, since mob mentality is pretty predictable, the next step they take will definitely offend one or more sub-groups – who will instantly forget, as quickly as the next new “fiasco” becomes a headline. But in turn it will absolutely endear at least one or more niches, as well – who will remain loyal, because of Pepsi/AMP’s “heart.”

I think it’s brilliant, since the success has already been had. No matter what they do next, there is one thing that has already happened. You are paying attention to them today, when yesterday you were not. On top of that, like any good shepherd, they have guided the sheep to do exactly what they can always expect sheep to do.

Yes it’s a shrewd marketing move – but does that make it ok?

But Women Objectify Men! Wouldn’t be such a big deal if other way around!

“Women objectify men too, they’re just more circumspect about it.”

True, women objectify men as well, but that doesn’t make objectifying women acceptable. Both are wrong!
There were several comments I’ve seen that makes this argument.

Responses of Real Men & Women

“Real men wouldn’t find this ad offensive, and real women would realize it was a joke.”

I sure wouldn’t want to be around these real men and women lest be married to one. It seems to me that the proper response to that which is wrong is to be offended. If someone showed this app to your daughter or worse tried to use it on your daughter, wouldn’t you be offended? I can’t speak for women, but I would assume any women with dignity should be at least somewhat appalled. No?

• What do you think?
• What is the proper response? Should we be offended or take it as something humorous?
• Are you offended?
• Do you think something like this contributes to forming a person’s view of others and of lifestyles?
• Please let us know what you think!

Related posts:

1. Selling Products or Selling Lifestyle?
2. Influence of Media & Advertising in Our View of Life
3. Google Changes stance on Abortion Keywords

Is Truth Relative? Do we have a “right” to do as we please?

This discussion is not about abortion, but let me lay it out as an example to make a point. Everyone has heard the abortion arguments before: the argument for life and the argument for choice. Is abortion wrong because the child is a human being and no one has the right to kill a child? Or should abortion be considered a valid option because it is in the right of the mother to determine whether they can or want the child? How about the right of a person to kill oneself? Do old sickly people have the right to end their own lives? Can other people assist them? Stop them? The debates continue but underlying these discussions is a much deeper battle: the battle in the validity of the sanctity of life.

Morality vs Rights?

Our current culture emphasizes tolerance and rights. The “right” of a person is held on a high pedestal, I dare say even above morality. What happens when someone chooses to say someone is wrong? They are labeled intolerant and someone not considerate of the “right” of a person to do and believe what makes them happy. We are told truth is not absolute, it is relative. It is all about what feels right to a person and the “right” for a person to hold onto his or her version of truth. Thus over time, “rights” have become a touchy subject but an issue we need to tackle when discussing the sanctity of life.

Are Humans any Different from Animals?

• Is there such a thing as the “sanctity of life” when it comes to human beings?
• Is there something innate about human beings that sets them apart?
• If so, under what basis?

Naturalism says there is nothing in life outside of what we see in nature- there is no spiritual world, there is no god, there is no supernatural. Thus from a strict naturalistic perspective, humans are no different from animals. Why is that? Naturalist have to believe that humans were born out of bunch of atoms that by chance led to who we are today. From a naturalistic perspective, the only explanation for our seemingly unique ability to reason, make decisions, or have a moral conscious, is simply determined by our chemical makeup. The very reason you are reading this article is due to chemical reactions in your body – you did not chose to read it, it was set to happen. There is no “free will” or “choice”, we just do as our chemical agents leads us to do. Thus if there is no free will, there can be no choice of doing what is right or wrong, or any extra “value” in us. Hitler did what he did due to his all the chain reactions from the beginning of time. Mother Teresa did what she did, not by choice, but due to her chemical makeup. You can’t blame one or honor the other – it’s was all determined. In this worldview, there is nothing that separates us from other animals let alone plants. There is no special “sanctity of life”.

Some might be tempted to say that one believes we are mere chemicals, but still believe humans are valuable. Most would agree to that, but again, under what basis? If we are indeed just a chance product of nature (this including our ability to reason, our emotions etc), what basis do we have any “sanctity” versus some other animal?

“It seems we demand humans to live with indignity, pain and anguish whereas we are kinder to our pets when their suffering becomes too much. It simply is not logical or mature…” – Dr. Philip Nitschke

Who is Dr. Philip Nitschke?

Dr. Philip Nischke is an Australian medical doctor and founder of pro-euthanasia group called Exit International. He has campaigned for legal euthanasia and was successful in passing a law in Australia’s Northern Territory. He helped four people end their lives before the law was overturned by Australia’s Federal government. He has also provided advice to others who ended up ending their lives. He has also been in the news for his willingness to accompany several New Zealanders to Mexico to help them purchase potentially life-ending drug Nembutal and also for presenting the idea of a “death ship” which he would take people to international waters to circumvent local laws.

Dr. Philip Nitschke’s Worldview
Nitschke’s worldview is a natural result of naturalism. Since what we see in nature is all there is to life, there is nothing innate about human beings that makes them any more valuable than a dog, a cat, or even an insect. He argues in the quote above, if we kill our own pets when they are suffering, why can’t we “dignify” people in doing the same. The question is, are humans innately different than animals? Are humans more valuable or are they the same? Is killing a dog or an insect different than killing a human being? To Dr. Nitschke, we are all the same.

Check out this article from Breakpoint regarding the Sanctity of Life:

Euthanasia & the Sanctity of Life

Regular BreakPoint listeners have heard me speak about the impact of declining birth rates around the world. One consequence is that older people comprise an increasing percentage of the population in places like Japan and Western Europe.

This increases economic pressures on these countries since an aging population requires more services while having fewer young workers to pay for them.

One doctor has come up with a way to address the imbalance between pensioners and workers—that is, fewer pensioners.

What Dr. Philip Nitschke has in mind isn’t raising the retirement age—his goal is fewer pensioners.

Nitschke is the founder of Exit International, a self-described “world-leading Voluntary Euthanasia” organization. As part of his mission, Nitschke, who is from Australia, travels to different countries teaching people “how to end their lives safely.”

One of his methods is a dose of the barbiturate Nembutal. While in Britain, he told Reuters that “almost every 75-year-old I meet now sees merit in having their own bottle of Nembutal in the cupboard as an insurance policy, in case things get bad.”

Every 75-year-old? Clearly the Kevorkian from Down Under runs with an atypical crowd. As Reuters put it, “Nitschke’s is an extreme view.” Extreme, but unfortunately not unthinkable, especially given the trajectory of our culture.

At the same time Nitschke was speaking to Reuters, Britain was awaiting new guidelines for cases involving people who help family members commit suicide. The guidelines are the result of litigation involving a woman with multiple sclerosis who plans to go to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal. She wanted assurances that her husband wouldn’t be prosecuted for helping her kill herself. Britain’s law lords ruled that she was entitled to such assurances.

While assisted-suicide is still illegal within Britain, attitudes are changing. For example, the Royal College of Nurses has gone from being opposed to assisted-suicide to a position of neutrality. You don’t have to be an alarmist or even a pessimist to guess what the next change will be.

These changes coincide with the graying of the British population. Currently, 20 percent of Britons are over 65, and that is projected to rise to 30 percent by 2020. Pro-euthanasia advocates scoff at the idea that the elderly will be pressured to die by society, but British officials acknowledge the possibility. One told the BBC that he wouldn’t want to live in a society that pressured its elderly to kill themselves to make life easier for their families.

The government’s way of preventing that is laws that “strike a balance,” he said, between “sympathetic” cases and protecting the elderly. But you and I know where the road paved with good intentions leads. Without a bright line around the sanctity of human life, the extreme inexorably becomes the mainstream.

The so-called “right to die” can become, as one American politician suggested, a “duty to die,” especially as the costs associated with an aging population crowd out other priorities.

There is only one insurance policy against this nightmare—an unqualified commitment to the sanctity of life.

Euthanasia vs. the Sanctity of Life: It has only just begun.

Healthcare has become one of the biggest discussion topics in Congress and this issue of the sanctity of life is soon going to be a very real topic every person will have to grapple with. The large “baby boomer” population are slowing entering into the later stages of life.

How will the government deal with the limited resources available?
If an old frail 80 year old needs special treatments that will require expensive procedures and medicines, should we make them fully available? Or is it more “practical” to use those limited resources on someone younger who has more years to live and has a better quality of life?

The discussion on euthanasia and the sanctity of life has only just begun…

Where do you stand?

If one asks you..

• Do you believe a person has the right to kill oneself if they are old and sick? (By the way, let’s not sugarcoat this, it’s basically committing suicide).

If you answered yes, the next question would be,

• Does a person have a right to kill oneself even if they aren’t old and sick?
• Does the person have the “right” to do that?

It’s a slippery slope folks. If we deem it the “right” of a person to take one’s own life because they are sick (or assist someone), we will have to allow a person to kill themselves in any situation. Ultimately it comes down to this:

• Do you believe in the sanctity of life?
• Do you believe people innately have value and are set apart from animals, insects and inanimate objects? Or do you believe humans have no intrinsic value?

Intrinsic Value or No Intrinsic Value?

• If you believe in the sanctity of life, then under what basis?
• What gives people intrinsic value versus other things of nature?

If Dr. Philip Nischke is right and we are no different from animals, then he has every right to believe it is ok to kill a human being. We kill animals all the time, so why not people?

If you believe that people have intrinsic value and that life is sacred, first you need to figure out under what basis? Where does the value come from? Secondly, issues like euthanasia and abortion should be crystal clear. No one is allowed to kill any other human being under any circumstances. Nobody has the “right” to do that.

So where do you fall?
Leave your comments below.

Related posts:

1. There is Media, then there is Reality – Abortion

France: Regulate those Manipulated Pictures!

This is going to create some interesting controversy. French lawmakers have decided to regulate airbrushing photos by requiring disclaimers on photos that are photoshopped or enhanced in any way. This action was taken as a way of fighting against body image issues at the source.

This disclaimer would be needed in newspapers, photos, magazines, political pieces, product packaging, art photography and any situation where there is a “retouched photograph aimed at changing a person’s physical appearance.”

Hours of Hair & Makeup followed by Hours of Photo Manipulation

Even after hours of hair and makeup styling, photos used in print often go through hours of photo manipulation. Some very common practices are to slim waistlines, slim the hips, lengthen the neck and legs, alter facial structures, increase symmetry, widen eyes, fix nose shape, have a woman’s breast lifted, change skin colors, add shadows, add tones, move eyebrows, remove bad marks, erase freckles, change the background, and stylize the hair. An altered photo can look dramatically different from the original.

The photo above is an example of what photoshop can do in a mere 5 minutes of photoshop work. During a 5 minute segment on Homepage, a show on CP24, Greg Danbrooke demonstrated how Photoshop is the real tool behind the perfection we see on magazine covers and billboards.

Check out the step by step difference here

Also if you haven’t seen the Dove Evolution Video watch it!

This law was proposed by French MP Valirie Boyer who also released a report on anorexia and bulimia. The concern has always been the effects of unrealistic body images has on young boys and girls. Starting at an early age a girl is exposed to so many images of beautiful celebrities, disproportionate barbie dolls, photos of women who have slender body types and seemingly perfect features. It is no wonder 62% of girls feel insecure about themselves and 81% of 10 years old fears getting fat.

“Many young people, particularly girls, do not know the difference between the virtual and reality, and can develop complexes from a very young age. In some cases this leads to anorexia or bulimia and very serious health problems.” – French MP Valerie Boyer

50+ French politicians have voiced their support for this legislation. The fine for breaking this law would be a fine of approximately $48K USD or 50% of the campaign costs.

• Do you think this law is a good idea or a bad idea?
• Do you think this law should pass?
• Is photoshopped bodies a detriment to self-image especially in children?

Please share your thoughts below!

Related posts:

1. Unnaturally Beautiful Children: Image & Beauty
2. Sexualization of Girls in Media – New Report
3. Are Superbowl Ads Not Good for Kids?

Remembering 9/11 – Attack of the World Trade Center

An early apology for dampening your day, but I am a strong advocate for the need for all people to remember the events of September 11, 2001. This was a historical moment in history, one that will be seared in our minds forever. As hard as it is to relive the experience, I think it is important that we remember the fragility of life and how in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, everyone had to stop their hurried life to reexamine why they do what they do. Questions about the meaning of life, why suffering exists, questions about God and afterlife all became a real issue in the eyes of those not only living in the United States but around the world.

See first the details of the event, followed by my own experience that morning.

Details of the Sept 11, 2001 Attack on WTC

Early in the morning on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. (Washington Dulles International Airport). At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 was crashed into the World Trade Center’s North Tower, followed by United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Another group of hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. A fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, whose ultimate target was thought to be either the United States Capitol or White House, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m, after the passengers on board engaged in a fight with the hijackers.

During the hijacking of the airplanes, the hijackers used weapons to stab and/or kill aircraft pilots, flight attendants and passengers. Reports from phone callers from the planes indicated that knives were used by the hijackers to stab attendants and in at least one case, a passenger, during two of the hijackings. Some passengers were able to make phone calls using the cabin airphone service and mobile phones, and provide details, including that several hijackers were aboard each plane, that mace or other form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray was used, and that some people aboard had been stabbed. The 9/11 Commission established that two of the hijackers had recently purchased Leatherman multi-function hand tools. A flight attendant on Flight 11, a passenger on Flight 175, and passengers on Flight 93 mentioned that the hijackers had bombs, but one of the passengers also mentioned he thought the bombs were fake. No traces of explosives were found at the crash sites, and the 9/11 Commission believed the bombs were probably fake.

On United Airlines Flight 93, black box recordings revealed that crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers after learning through phone calls that similarly hijacked planes had been crashed into buildings that morning. According to the transcript of Flight 93’s recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers.Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03:11 a.m. local time. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, organiser of the attacks, mentioned in a 2002 interview with Yosri Fouda, an al Jazeera journalist, that Flight 93’s target was the United States Capitol, which was given the code name “the Faculty of Law”.

The World Trade Centers Collapse

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. The south tower fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175. The north tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes. When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, and the building collapsed later in the day at 5:20 p.m.

Widespread Confusion, a Traffic Controller’s Nightmare

The attacks created widespread confusion among news organizations and air traffic controllers across the United States. All international civilian air traffic was banned from landing on US soil for three days. Aircraft already in flight were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico. News sources aired unconfirmed and often contradictory reports throughout the day. One of the most prevalent of these reported that a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Soon after reporting for the first time on the Pentagon crash, CNN and other media also briefly reported that a fire had broken out on the Washington Mall. Another report went out on the AP wire, claiming that a Delta Air Lines airliner—Flight 1989—had been hijacked. This report, too, turned out to be in error; the plane was briefly thought to represent a hijack risk, but it responded to controllers and landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio. [Source: Wikipedia]

Casualties of Sept 11, 2001 – The Statistics

There were a total of 2,993 deaths, including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes, 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing. All of the deaths in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon. More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Center. In 2007, the New York City medical examiner’s office added Felicia Dunn-Jones to the official death toll from the September 11 attacks. Dunn-Jones died five months after 9/11 from a lung condition which was linked to exposure to dust during the collapse of the World Trade Center.

NIST estimated that about 17,400 civilians were in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks, while turnstile counts from the Port Authority suggest that 14,154 people were typically in the Twin Towers by 8:45 a.m. The vast majority of people below the impact zone safely evacuated the buildings, along with 18 people who were in the impact zone in the south tower. 1,366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower. According to the Commission Report, hundreds were killed instantly by the impact, while the rest were trapped and died after the tower collapsed. As many as 600 people were killed instantly or were trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower.

At least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers, landing on the streets and rooftops of adjacent buildings hundreds of feet below. Some of the occupants of each tower above its point of impact made their way upward toward the roof in hope of helicopter rescue, but the roof access doors were locked. No plan existed for helicopter rescues, and on September 11, the thick smoke and intense heat would have prevented helicopters from conducting rescues.

A total of 411 emergency workers who responded to the scene died as they attempted to rescue people and fight fires. The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) lost 341 firefighters and 2 FDNY paramedics.The New York City Police Department lost 23 officers. The Port Authority Police Department lost 37 officers, and 8 additional EMTs and paramedics from private EMS units were killed.

Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer. Marsh Inc., located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11’s impact), lost 355 employees, and 175 employees of Aon Corporation were killed. After New York, New Jersey was the hardest hit state, with the city of Hoboken sustaining the most deaths.

Weeks after the attack, the estimated death toll was over 6,000. The city was only able to identify remains for about 1,600 of the victims at the World Trade Center. The medical examiner’s office also collected “about 10,000 unidentified bone and tissue fragments that cannot be matched to the list of the dead”. [Source: Wikipedia]

The Morning of Sept 11, 2001 – Shocked & Confused

I woke up to the sound of someone talking on the radio. The sun was already beating down through the bedroom window, another beautiful day I thought. Half alert, I was wondering why my roommate had the radio on. I had planned to sleep in a bit. Then I heard over the air-waves, someone speaking of a plane crashing into a building. For a second I thought I must have misheard. Planes being run into buildings? That’s crazy. I need more sleep. Then I heard it again, a plane has hit the world trade center. I am not dreaming. Something is going on. I jumped out of bed. My roommate and I ran out to flip on the TV and there it was. The country was in utter chaos. Everyone was confused. It was surreal, you don’t ever hear such words like planes, buildings, terrorists uttered in the same sentence. Our eyes were glued to the TV, looking at the burning tower, the people screaming, the people crying. It was as if the world stopped. Are the people out? What about those on the top floors? What in the world happened? Why is no one making it clear what happened?! By now everyone was on the phone calling their own families. Then it happened, the tower collapsed. We gazed in horror as New York was engulfed in smoke. The dust smoke crawled and expanded in and between all the buildings as if it had the intent to bury all in it’s path.

The thought of the lives of 3,000 some people, gone in an instant, was something impossible to even fathom or comprehend. What about their families? How many people left that morning as if it was just another day in their lives to only have their lives transformed in a blink of an eye? I don’t know about you, but in that moment my view of life itself became very focused. What is the meaning of life? What really matters in life? What happens after life? Why is this happening? What is evil? Why is there suffering? Emotionally this day would shake the foundations of many who witnessed what we would later call 9/11.

To be honest, it is only the next year as I attended a gathering memorializing the event, when it really hit me what kind of horrible event I had just lived through. I just hope that all those questions people had then, will not be forgotten and those who dared to ask such tough questions, chose to find answers. If they did not, I think that is a tragedy in itself. Don’t let such an event not change you for the better.

• What is your memory of the Sept 11, 2001?
• Did your life change at all due to the incident?
• Did you ever grapple with questions like the meaning of life, suffering, afterlife or any other “life questions”?

Anorexia Weight Loss

A Web page labeled “Ana Boot Camp” recently offered its members a seemingly irresistible proposition: a 30-day regimen designed to help them drop some serious pounds, no exercise needed. The catch was that the group’s members were to vary their daily caloric intake from 500 (less than half the daily minimum requirement for women recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine) to zero. They were supposed to track their progress, fast to make up for the days they accidentally “overate” and support each other as they worked toward their common goal of radical weight loss.

Pro Anorexia or “Pro-Ana” Sites

Pro-anorexia, or sometimes called “pro-ana,” Web sites have been a common fixture in the internet world. The site quoted above was actually a page created in Facebook. These sites have users sharing dangerous diet tips and posting pictures of very skinny girls. The purpose of these sites is to give one another “thinspiration”. Users tend to comment and posting anonymously or with a secret aliases.

“These sites provided a setting where I could talk about the illness without people trying to fix me or tell me that what I’m doing is horrible, disgusting, maladaptive… For me, part of the illness was just about getting attention. You feel so lonely and you want someone to notice you, and I guess that’s kind of the way to do it, even with other sick people.” – Rose 17, Maryland High School Senior

Pro Anorexia Social Network

Sites such as Facebook allows a secondary dynamic by allowing close networking. The girls who visit these pages can now trade information with one another and even exchange phone numbers to talk over their issues. Dr. Steven Crawford, associate director of the Center for Eating Disorders at Sheppard Pratt in Baltimore, mentioned that when such pro anorexia sites are centered in a social networking site such as Facebook, it becomes appealing because it allows them to make a stand and simply declare their disorder. Having a community with the same issues gives one courage rather than having to deal with hiding and keeping it to themselves.

The creators of these groups claim they were created so anorexic girls can support one another. Some of these sites are legit by focusing on recovering from anorexia. However the problem is that the more girls get exposed to these pro anorexia sites, the more they are likely to gain a eating disorder according to Stanford professor Rebecka Peebles, M.D.

She also found in a study in 2006, that 96% of teens diagnosed with eating disorders who have visited pro anorexic sites ended up discovering new dieting or purging techniques.

One girl named Stef, 19, had joined several pro anorexia sites drawing the worries of her friends. However she said that it is “helping me deal with my eating disorder”. She enjoys the thinspiration, the weight loss tips and finding fasting partners.

Anti Pro Anorexia Stronger

The anorexia opposition is even stronger. Anti-anorexia groups far outnumber the pro-ana groups on Facebook. Some of the purposes of these groups is to find pro-ana sites and ask Facebook to take them down. In Facebook, groups cannot promote self-harm or harm to others. They also serve as a way to warn people about the pro anorexia sites and educate it’s members about other alternatives.

Angela Ross, 19, recovered from her disorder and ended up creating a anti pro-ana page. She has 1,400 members. She was fueled to take action because she had run into a pro-ana site during a day when she was feeling down about her weight. The site ended up leading her to having eating disorders.

Some do see these sites as a positive sign that teenagers are getting more serious about being open about their disorders. Marcia Herrin, a Dartmouth professor who has written several books on eating disorder, says “To me, that illustrates or indicates that teens these days are so wise… They’ve seen so much, they know so much, compared to when I was a teenager in the ’60s, that not all of them are wrapped up in eating disorders. Girls are concerned about other girls in their social group who they see toying with an eating disorder. They may talk to them directly, they may talk to a school counselor, they may talk to the girls’ parents.”

More on Rose who was quoted earlier in the article.

Rose actually hoped some of her friends would see the groups she was joining and talk to her about them. “I wanted one of my close friends to see it and rescue me,” she says. But unfortunately, no one did. At one point, she was so involved in the Facebook pro-ana community that she started her own group in defense of it; eventually she deleted that group and stopped posting in others. She couldn’t get over her guilt at “helping someone kill themselves” by supporting them in their fasting, and she realized that the groups weren’t truly helping her. “Even though the pro-ana sites provided a way for me to communicate with people, it wasn’t real-life connections and it wasn’t real friendships,” she says. “It was us telling people, ‘Oh, stay strong.’ I was not getting better. I was venting the frustrations. I just wanted to talk to people with similar experiences; they really didn’t help at all.”

Rose has now recovered from anorexia and rarely visits pro-ana Facebook groups. She says taht she is relived to no longer be part of that world.

• What is your reaction to pro-anorexia sites?
• Did you know such sites existed? on Facebook?
• Have you seen any of these sites? How did it affect you?

Share your thoughts!

Related Articles:

Unnaturally Beautiful Children: Image & Beauty
Girl Self-Esteem & Image Issues & Parents

Related posts:

1. Who Regulates Online Advertising & Marketing to Children?

John Piper gave a message called “The Baby in My Womb Leaped for Joy” January 25, 2009. In this message he speaks highly of Obama, but disagrees sharply in regards to the issue of abortion. In a section of his message he speaks about the 36th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. President Barack Obama released the statement:

We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
- Barack Obama

John Piper gives his response to this quote. His response was taken and made into a typography video. It is a very well made video. This video has gone viral this past week with over 60,000 views in the last few days.

No, Mr. President: John Piper’s Response to President Obama on Abortion

Pastor John Piper

Who is John Piper?

John Piper is a Pastor serving at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is the author of many books such as What Jesus Demands from the World, Pierced by the Word, God’s Passion for His Glory, and Don’t Waste Your Life.

Media is playing a greater factor in debating these controversial topics. I personally love a well made typography video, as well as firm well spoken speech. Combine the two and here comes one result.

• What do you think of this video?
• Do you agree it is well made?
• How do you feel about the response?

Let us know below! As always keep it civil people.

Other Abortion Related Viral Videos:
Pro Life Abortion Speech by Lia 12 Years Old
Obama Pro Life Abortion Video

Related posts:

1. Pro-Life Abortion Speech by 12 Year Old