As shown in MNet’s study Young Canadians in a Wired World, young people turn overwhelmingly to the Internet when they need information – so it’s not surprising that it’s their preferred source when it comes to sex. As Dr. Vyta Senikas, associate executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, told The Globe and Mail, “It's a medium that adolescents are extremely comfortable with and it's a limitless resource."

 

Others point to the anonymity of the Internet as its main advantage. Rana Barar, program manager for the Web site sexetc.org (sponsored by Answer, a Rutgers University-based sexual education organization), told the Globe "It's an opportunity for teens to ask the questions they're not getting answered in their sex ed. classes or by their parents."

 

If the Internet does spell the end of sex ed. in schools, it may not be widely mourned. Its place in the classroom has always been shaky, with two forces working against it: money and politics. Money is a constant issue in schools, of course, and there is always pressure to remove subjects that may be seen as “frills” and get back to the core curriculum. In Quebec, for instance, education about sex has been eliminated as a specific subject, with teachers being asked to find ways to work it into other subjects. Even in places where sex ed. remains on the curriculum few teachers are specifically trained in it -- training teachers takes time and money, commodities which are always in short supply. As well, political forces are often trying to remove sex ed. from the classroom. In the United States, the Bush administration has been working to replace comprehensive sex education with classes that promote only abstinence. With few answers coming from school or their parents, it’s not surprising that youth go online to get information about sex.

 

 

Unfortunately, there’s little evidence that this self-directed learning is paying off. A national study of the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease among girls and women, carried out by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showed that one quarter of American women surveyed are infected with at least one disease; legislators in Florida, meanwhile, agreed to consider a bill requiring comprehensive sex education in schools after hearing that many young people believe that Mountain Dew is a contraceptive and that drinking bleach can prevent AIDS. The Internet is, of course, a treasure trove of information of all kinds. The problem is the kinds of information youth are finding there; for the most part it’s still true that, as the musical Avenue Q memorably put it, “The Internet is for porn.”

 

 

Of course, young people aren’t only getting messages about sex from the Internet. A recent study, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and performed by the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, took a wide-ranging look at the relationship between media messages and the sexual health of teens. Looking at movies, TV, music, Web sites and magazines, researchers examined both the number of sexual messages youth were receiving and the content of those messages.

 

Researchers suggested that for most teens, the media is their primary (or only) source of sex education, acting as, in their words, a “sexual super-peer” – providing models of sexual behaviour that present it as idealized and free of consequence. Unlike sex education from schools or parents, the sexual messages in the media are not only available but are, in many cases, nearly unavoidable (57 per cent of R&B lyrics studied contained sexual material). So even when not encountering actual pornography, teens are getting powerful and often unhealthy sexual messages from the media.

 

 

Much discussion has occurred over the last year about the so-called “Juno Effect” – whether or not the movie Juno, in which a pregnant teen chooses to carry her child to term and give it up for adoption (with happy endings for everyone) has caused a rise in teen pregnancy, or at least an acceptance of it as something normal. More recently, the new TV show The Secret Life of the American Teenager began with its 15-year-old protagonist discovering she is pregnant. Despite the importance of the pregnancy to the storyline, however, it is not shown whether she had ever discussed contraception at school or at home, or considered using it during her brief fling at band camp (a locale that is a wink and nod to the American Pie movies – showing that the show’s creators expect its teen viewers to be familiar with an R-rated sex comedy).

 

Another well-known example, this time drawn from real life, is Jamie Lynn Spears, who admitted to being pregnant at 16, in 2007. Readers of celebrity magazines can rest easy, though: as star of Nickelodeon’s Zoey 101 and sister to Britney, it’s unlikely that she’ll suffer the same problems – ostracism, reduced odds of finishing high school, and poverty – that researchers such as those at the Alan Gutmacher Institute have found teenage single parents more likely to suffer. With teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. rising for the first time in fourteen years, according to NPR, many young women will soon get to see if their experience of motherhood is as positive as Jamie Lynn’s.

 

 

It’s important not to dismiss the Internet as a source of good sex education. There are many sites that are dedicated to providing useful information about sex. SexualityandU (www.sexualityandu.ca), a Web site run by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, has sections dedicated to teachers, parents and of course teens; the teen section includes topics such as contraception, sexually transmitted infections and sexual orientation. Some of the material is presented entertainingly, such as the “Sex-Fu Challenge” game, but in other cases it’s as dry as the average school Sex Education class; a banner for a parody of CSI titled “STI: Sexually Transmitted Infections” leads, disappointingly, to a bulleted list of STIs. Still, the content – from broad questions like “What is sex?” to specific tutorials in subjects such as how to use a condom – is solid and accessible.

 

Some online sex education sources go to the opposite extreme, trying to hook audiences by being shocking. The Midwest Teen Sex Show, for instance (http://midwestteensexshow.com/), is a series of sex ed. podcasts with titles like “Beatin’ It,” “Gym Class” and “Backdoor Business.” A typical podcast about contraception makes its point by having the narrator say “Babies are f---ing stupid… Let’s prevent babies.”

Take Care Down There (www.takecaredownthere.org), sponsored by Planned Parenthood, goes even further with podcasts bearing titles such as “Horse Penis Virus” and “I Didn’t Spew.”

 

It may be that sex education sources have to be shocking in order to reach youth. Another tool being explored by some organizations is to deliver sex education through the media that teens are already using. Internet Sexuality Information Services, or ISIS (http://www.isis-inc.org/), receives and answers anonymous questions by text message. The youth-focused virtual world Whyville (www.whyville.net) is surveying its users to find out where ‘tweens are getting information about love, sex and reproductive health.

 

 

Good as these sources are, though, they’re rowing upstream against the vast majority of media messages, online and otherwise. As well, they have the disadvantage of needing youth to come to them: no matter how useful, shocking or entertaining they may be, they can only reach those who choose to visit them.

 

That, in the end, is why online sources can never fully take the place of classroom sex education. By making sex education mandatory you guarantee that it will reach nearly all students. According to a study performed at the University of Washington, comprehensive sex education courses reduce the likelihood of teen parenthood by a half, compared to either abstinence-only sex education or none at all. The study also found that discussion of topics such as contraception and STIs does not increase the odds that teens will have sex. That, of course, has been the charge laid by opponents of comprehensive sex education. Among those opponents has been John McCain, the Republic candidate for the U.S. presidency, who has routinely voted against funding for sex education. McCain may want to reconsider his position: as most will have heard by now, his running mate Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and unmarried at 17. Should McCain and Palin be elected, it will be interesting to see if Bristol Palin will be accused, like “Juno” and Jamie Lynn, of inspiring a teen baby boom.

 

 

 

1. Do you think that young people are turning to the Internet for information about sex because of the reasons given above (easy access, anonymity, etc.) or just because their first instinct is to go to the Internet when they need answers? Why do you think so?

 

2. What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of online sex education? How might some of those weaknesses be improved?

 

4. Do you believe that young people’s sexual behaviour is influenced by the media they consume (TV, movies, music, etc.)? If so, what (if anything) do you think should be done about it?

 

5. One of the studies mentioned in the article suggested that there is no difference between explicit and less explicit sexual material in how it affects sexual behaviour (so scenes of kissing have the same “punch” as nudity). Why do you think this might be so?

 

6. Do you think that movies and TV shows that portray teen pregnancy in a positive way make young people feel that it is okay to become pregnant (the “Juno effect”)? Why or why not?

 

7. Do you think that we still need sex education in school? Why or why not?

“Who steals my purse steals trash,” Shakespeare wrote, “but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.”

 

Today these words are truer than ever, with one exception: now “he that filches my good name” can enrich himself from it. On Thursday, October 16, CTV News Ottawa at 6:00 will be featuring a story on protecting yourself from identity theft.

 

As our daily lives move increasingly online, we become more vulnerable to identity theft. In the online world our personal information is who we are: if someone gets your e-mail address and password, for all intents and purposes they become you. Despite this, most of us have yet to be as careful with our personal information as we are with our physical privacy.

 

Two main motives underlie identity theft: to use a stolen identity to get money or goods, and to damage the victim’s reputation. Whatever the motive, the same habits can make us vulnerable to identity theft. First is a lack of scepticism and critical thinking; a moment’s thought, for instance, would suggest to us that our bank probably wouldn’t send us an e-mail asking us to verify our account number. Another moment’s research would find a statement telling us so on the bank’s Web site. Nevertheless, many people fall victim to such “phishing” scams.

 

This points toward a more general tendency to undervalue our privacy, giving away personal information without thinking of the consequences. Facebook, MySpace and similar social networking sites are good examples of this: study after study has shown that users of these services fail to consider the risks of placing their personal information online. In addition to the harm that can be done to one’s reputation – both by others and oneself – there can be financial consequences of an overly candid Facebook profile: identity thieves can do a lot with just your birth date, name and address. Address spoofing, where stolen email addresses are used to distribute spam, requires just one piece of personal information: your e-mail address.

 

There are several Canadian resources to help you prevent and recover from identity theft:

 

Identity Theft: What it is and what you can do about it (Office of the Privacy Commissioner)

 

Identity Theft (RCMP)

 

Identity Theft – Questions and Answers (SafeCanada.ca)

 

It’s never too young to start thinking about privacy. MNet has produced two recent resources on privacy management: Privacy and Internet Life, a lesson for Grades 7-8 which teaches students how to protect their personal information on social networking sites such as Facebook, and The Privacy Dilemma, a lesson for Grades 9-12 which asks students to consider and discuss the trade-offs we all make on a daily basis between maintaining our privacy and gaining access to information services.

The recently released Pew Report Teens, Video Games and Civicshas revived the question about whether video games can be a worthwhile activity. Another recent entry in this debate is Jim Rossignol’s This Gaming Life, a survey of computer gaming culture and a chronicle of its role in the author’s life.

 

This Gaming Life aspires to be several books: as the title suggests, it’s an examination of the effects of games – specifically, computer games – on their players; its subtitle, “Travels in Three Cities,” points to its identity as a travel narrative. Finally, This Gaming Life is an autobiography about Rossignol’s own experiences with gaming.

 

Rossignol begins with the statement “Video games changed my life,” which gives you a sense of his attitude towards them. At the beginning of the book he explains how, while employed as a reporter for a business newspaper, he became obsessed with the multiplayer combat game Quake. As he became more and more accomplished at the game, becoming more active in its online culture, Rossignol found his satisfaction with his day job steadily waning. When he was finally fired his reaction was one of “sudden freedom: now there was nothing between me and pure indulgence. I could concentrate on the [Quake] team seven days a week, without interruption.”

 

Eventually able to parlay his gaming experience into a job writing about the computer game industry, Rossignol turns his focus to others in similar straits. For how many other people, he asks, is computer gaming a positive and even life-changing activity? “Many of the gamers I’ve met,” he explains, “have been involved directly in the games industry, but others are simply people for whom gaming is a continuous presence in their lives. Games have catalyzed major changes for some of these people, as they did for me. But they usually change us in subtler ways. These subtler effects have only begun to be mapped by researchers, commentators, and gamers. Sometimes the effects seem to be negative: people so distracted that they lose sight of their responsibilities – ignoring jobs, families, and everyday lives. Other times they are positive – stimulating intellectual and personal growth or awakening unrealized ambitions in creative minds.”

 

Though Rossignol tries to be even-handed, considering the negative aspects of gaming as well as the positive, the book is in large part a defence of computer games and gaming as an activity. Later, he makes this more explicit, arguing that computer games provide a learning experience not found in other arenas: “The intellectual value of video games… has to do with the fact that they aren’t explicit about their rules. Unlike a traditional game, such as chess, where the rules are fully spelled out in advance, you have to uncover the rules of individual video games as you go along. Most computer games are non-explicit ‘fuzzy’ experiences.”

 

As well, Rossignol’s defence of computer games goes beyond looking at their educational value – something already put forward by writers such as James Paul Gee – and argues that they possess a more existential value as well: “In a world where so many of us feel bored and alienated from our jobs,” he asks, “could games provide a special kind of amusement, one that instantly dissolves the memory of office-bound tedium?”

 

While the book’s autobiographical side meshes nicely with Rossignol’s broader arguments about the value of games, its subtitle – “Travels in Three Cities” – is mostly a conceit, similar to that found in nearly all recent pop-academic books, intended to provide some grounding and physical detail to what is essentially a series of essays and interviews. The “London” section, for instance, is really just a window on Rossignol’s own life and experience, while in the “Reykjavik” chapters – in which the city plays host to a conference of players of the multiplayer game EVE Online – the offline setting is much less important than the game’s fantastically (and fanatically) detailed virtual universe. The exception, though, is the section on Seoul, where Rossignol provides fascinating details on the differences between North American and East Asian gaming culture. Take, for instance, this description of a televised computer game match: “To a fanfare of Asian nu metal and the sound of a thousand screaming fans, a young Korean man entered a dazzling arena. Like an American wrestler at the heart of a glitter-glazed Royal Rumble, he strode down a ramp toward the stage. Adorned in what appeared to be a space suit and a large white cape, he stepped out to meet his opponent on the stadium’s ziggurat focus. Amid a blaze of flashbulbs and indoor fireworks, he clambered up the steps, to be exalted by the thronging crowd.”

 

The differences between American and Korean gaming cultures clearly fascinate Rossignol, and it is in this section that his writing is most alive and insightful. Particularly interesting is his explanation of the differences between how Americans and Koreans play differently, in terms of the physical environment: “While Western gamers stay at home to play on their expensive Japanese consoles, the Koreans go out in search of a seat in a ‘PC Baang,’ one of their dedicated PC gaming cafes. A rented PC, a game of multiplayer kart racing, and perhaps a sly cigarette in the smoking section – these were the main ingredients for a typical evening. The combination has inspired a vibrant, youthful culture, where people go gaming to meet potential partners and where popular bangs have double-PC ‘love seats,’ allowing partners to sit close and play side by side, brushing fingertips as they reach for the conveniently placed drink holder.”

 

Although somewhat scattered in its focus, this book includes a great deal of thought-provoking material. For those unfamiliar with computer gaming culture, not to mention those sceptical of games as a subject of serious study, this book will be a valuable read. Rossignol’s defence of games as part of a life well-lived may not convince every reader, but it will certainly raise questions that deserve to be answered.

 

Joe McGinniss’ book The Selling of the President had a shocking title for 1968, suggesting as it did that in the television age the presidency had become nothing more than another product to be packaged and sold. A new MNet resource, Watching the Elections (a lesson for Grade 8 to 12 Social Studies classes), shines a light on how the different aspects of an election – from the debates to political ads to the candidates themselves – are actually media products.

 

Despite the shocked reaction to McGinniss’ book, as far back as the Nineteenth Century it was the power of the press that brought events such as the Lincoln-Douglas debates to voters. Now, thanks to the Web site The Living Room President, we can see that candidates have been sold like soap since the dawn of television. (You can view a playlist of our favourites here, or browse the site from the main page.) While some of the commercials from 1952 have the direct and dignified air we expect to see in the past, others use advertising techniques that today’s politicians would find too crass, such as jingles and cartoons (including this one with what sounds like the voice of Alan Reed, the original Fred Flintstone).

It’s true that political ads have become more sophisticated over the years. Perhaps the biggest change came with Ronald Reagan, a candidate who, having been an actor, was already a media product before entering politics: his ad campaigns created a seamless narrative that blended patriotism, fear and reassurance by painting a picture of “Morning in America.”

Most recently, campaign commercials have focused as heavily on the candidate’s personality as on any matters of policy. The 2004 George W. Bush ad “Windsurfing” purported to be a criticism of John Kerry’s purported flip-flopping, but in fact served more to highlight a moment in which Kerry looked silly – like the famous shot of Stockwell Day in the wet suit – and also cemented viewer perceptions of him as an East Coast liberal.

 

Political debates are, of course, a natural media event, and they are particularly suited to TV – a medium which thrives on close-ups and one-on-one combat. To this day one of the most famous presidential debates was that held between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. This debate proved the power of TV: those who listened to it on the radio generally thought Nixon had won, but those who saw it on TV – swayed, perhaps, by Kennedy’s youthful charm and Nixon’s flop-sweat – gave the win to Kennedy. Over the years TV networks have come up with a variety of techniques to make debates seem more dramatic: this 1992 Clinton-Bush-Perot debate, for instance, starts with clips of each candidate declaring “Let’s get it on!” (Note: this video may not have been uploaded by the copyright holder.)

Some have argued that the emphasis on conflict in the debate format, which is intensified by how the debates are presented on TV, lowers the tone of political argument and forces candidates to limit their positions to simple either/or statements. Those who feel this way will get no comfort from the fact that the upcoming U.S. debates will be Twittered live – perhaps forcing candidates to make sure that anything they say can be easily captured in a 140-character “tweet.”

 

What really makes debates such a great media product, of course, is that they’re all about personality. More than anything else, debates are a way for candidates to brand themselves (and their opponents). Consider Reagan’s glib dismissal of Jimmy Carter with “There you go again”; Brian Mulroney’s ability to paint himself as the principled outsider by telling John Turner “You had an option, sir. You could have said no”; Vice-presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen’s withering response to Dan Quayle’s suggestion that he was no less experienced than John F. Kennedy had been when elected – “I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”

 

The coming debates, both Canadian and American, should provide a good opportunity for classes to analyze the elections as media products. The Canadian debate will, for the first time – and after a certain amount of controversy – include Green Party leader Elizabeth May, bringing the number of debaters up to a rather unwieldy five. As for the American election, while the two Presidential debates will likely offer a memorable contest between a gifted orator and a self-described maverick not known for watching his words, odds are that a larger audience will be drawn to the matchup between the Vice-presidential nominees, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

 

The U.S. Presidential debates will be aired on September 26, October 7 and October 15. The Vice-presidential debate will air on October 2 – the same day as the sole English Canadian debate. Can’t decide? Not to worry – one or both will no doubt be posted on YouTube the next day.

 

The activity below is taken from the MNet resource Watching the Elections. Click here to view the entire lesson.

 

Ask students what they know about the candidates who will be participating in the debates. (You may wish to do some research in advance to be able to fill in gaps.) Share information on the board so that students are able to build a fairly complete profile of each candidate. Ask students what they think the key issues of the election are and list them on the board.

Distribute the following questions and go through them with students. Have students watch either the current Canadian or American debates live and answer the questions, then take them up with the class the next day.

 

 

 

What does the broadcaster do to make the debate seem more exciting in the opening sequence?

 

 

How does the set make the debate seem more exciting or dramatic?

 

How does the set enhance the sense of conflict between the candidates?

 

 

How does the format of the debate help to keep answers short and dramatic?

 

How does the format of the debate increase the conflict between the candidates?

 

 

Who chose the topics and/or questions? Who asks them? How do they serve to make the debate more dramatic or increase the conflict between the candidates?

 

 

Which candidate(s) do the commentators feel won the debate? Why? Do you agree? Why or why not?

It’s been a rough couple of months for a brat. Or rather for Bratz – the giant-headed, almond-eyed, scantily dressed dolls that have been giving Barbie a scare for the last few years. One of the toy success stories of the last decade, the Bratz juggernaut now shows signs of slowing down: first, a $100 million judgment against the dolls’ manufacturer, MGA Entertainment, which ruled that the original designer first drew them while still under contract at Mattel; then a successful campaign by parents to keep Bratz books out of the Scholastic catalogue, which places books in thousands of schools across North America; and, most painfully, reports that stores have cut shelf space for Bratz by as much as 50 per cent.

 

Parents and other concerned observers should probably wait before celebrating, though. None of these events necessarily mean that the end is near for Bratz, nor for other dolls that promote a distorted image of women’s bodies and sexuality. The loss of shelf space is most likely nothing more than the waning of a fad, and Scholastic insists that the parent campaign had no influence on their decision to remove Bratz books from their catalogue. More importantly, the attitudes towards body image and sexuality which Bratz dolls represent aren’t going to disappear anytime soon.

 

Barbie, of course, has long been criticized for her unrealistic measurements, and it may have been surprising to some to be looking back wistfully to the time when she ruled the doll aisle. The 2007 American Psychiatric Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls Report (APA Report) singled out both Bratz dolls and cartoons as particularly bad examples, noting that “Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” At the same time, Bratz were only one of many examples of images of adult sexuality in young girls. An analysis of magazines such as Newsweek and Ladies Home Journal found 38 ads that were seen to portray children “in sexual ways,” and only a campaign by parents (similar to the one which had no effect on Scholastic’s decision not to include Bratz books in their catalogue) prevented the release of dolls based on the Pussycat Dolls pop group.

 

The APA Report suggests that “The objectified sexuality presented by these dolls, as opposed to the healthy sexuality that develops as a normal part of adolescence, is limiting for adolescent girls.” Evidence for this may be the proliferation of revealing and provocative MySpace and Facebook profiles, in which adolescent girls are taught to trade sexuality for attention. A sixteen-year-old interviewed in an article for the New Haven Advocate put it succinctly: “I don't think it's about sex or anything like that. MySpace is like this place where you can accept friends and be friends with everyone. The girls with those [revealing] pictures, they have so many friends and most of them are people [they're] never going to meet."

 

There’s reason to hope that a backlash against preteen sexuality has begun, with books such as Packaging Girlhood (reviewed here recently) critiquing the ways in which various media conspire to sell a particular image of femininity to girls. Another good example is the NFB film Sexy, Inc, which examines these issues and, like Packaging Girlhood, suggests strategies for countering the sexualizing influence of these images on boys and girls. In some countries, such as Australia, advertising codes have been revised to specifically ban sexualized images of children.

 

The fact, though, is that using teen sexuality to sell products will most likely continue to remain popular. Bratz dolls, with their heavy makeup and streetwalker fashions, are just another way of playing make-believe, of letting girls pretend to be older, just as little girls once played “house” and Barbie and Ken were sent on dream dates. As Deborah Tolman, one of the authors of the APA Report says, “Nine-year-old girls do not experience dressing up in a sexy way as a sexy thing. They're just wearing clothes and thinking it's cool to look older.” Preteens naturally want to pretend to be older, and if the image of adolescence and adulthood they get from the media is an exclusively sexual one, that’s what they’ll embrace.