These were Facebook posts and comments started by one of my professors. I was nice enough to blur out peoples names and photos so they cannot be identified, sorry if the rest of the words are a bit blurry. 




And here is my response which I did post as a comment on this string of facebook discussion. 

First of all Person#1, I think its good that you are bringing up this discussion because discussion is the only way to work to end ignorance. I think it is problematic that my rights and the rights of other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) individuals are allowed to be up for debate while other people's rights are not. Same sex marriage is not my number one priority because currently it is still LEGAL to discriminate against against LGBTQ people in housing and employment. And while discrimination based on race, ethnicity or sex may still happen it is ILLEGAL.  Also I would like to bring up the point that not too long ago interracial marriage was illegal, how would you feel differently if your rights were up on the chopping block?

 

Second, @Person#2, where do you see this definition of marriage as a male and a female? And I don't see your line of thought in comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy. Polygamy is not permitted for ANY people where as marriage between 2 people is a right given to only SOME people. 

 

@ Person#2 and Person#3. A little bit about the US government. It is written into the constitution (yes the constitution, that document that left wing conservatives are always so concerned about upholding) that the purpose of the Judicial branch is to evaluate whether laws (voted on by the people) match the constitution of either the US or the state. The overturning of Prop 8 is not our government and our country falling apart and going to hell, it is actually our government strictly following the guidelines that our founding fathers set up for us. 

 

@Person#4, we do not live in a theocracy, god is not a deciding factor in laws and legislation. However I do understand that this separation of church and state can be fairly confusing when talking about marriage because marriage actually means 2 different things. The word marriage refers to the legal license given to people to get married and guarantees them over 1100 rights, this is legal marriage. The word marriage is also used to describe what some people choose to do within a church for religious reasons of unity etc, this is religions marriage.  The government has no control or influence over religious marriage only over legal marriage. Therefore despite what legislation there is about same-sex marriage, the government could never dictate what the rules are within specific religions institutions. @Person#1, I think this wording confusion is what you are referring to when you talk about the union vs marriage. In many places in Europe no one can get married, same sex or opposite sex. Anyone who wants a legal marriage or union goes through the government and gets a civil union, then if someone wants a marriage they go to a church and have a ceremony or whatever that has no legal or governmental purpose or meaning. Thats how I think it should be over here. 

 

Overall I am disappointed to see such lack of awareness, education and familiarity in people who I assume to be college students. The lack of same sex marriage causes families to fall apart. Imagine this: 

 

-Your partner gets in a car accident, you try and go to see her in the hospital and they shut you out because you aren't legally married. your partner dies alone in a hospital room because there is no same-sex marriage. 

 

-You and your partner are breaking up, but because there is no legal marriage there is also no legal divorce, your partner is able to take all that they want, the house, the kids, the money, because there is no government or court regulating the break up. 

 

- Your partner dies, you and your children are devastated, but on top of that social services comes to remove your children because you are not legally their parent. Now your children have lost both of their parents because of the lack of rights. 

 

After Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070 states across the nation of have discussed adopting similar laws despite the massive protesting and objections being seen across throughout the states. 

Unfortunately enough Ohio is one of the many states discussing adopting a similar law. Since Ohioans first got wind of this news, an open meeting was held on the University of Cincinnati campus to discuss what we can do to make sure that Ohio is not the next Arizona. And a rally was held on Saturday June 5th to protest the creation of any similar laws, to raise awareness about this issue and share the stories of those who have been affected by poor immigration laws. 





From what I have heard there appears to be a bill in Ohio that has passed the Senate, and Republicans are pushing for it to be on the ballot this November. 

The immigration reform rally was supported by Planned Parenthood, Cincinnati Interfaith Workers' Center and many other local organizations and individual activists. 

Since the rally I have not heard any word of a follow up with a lobby day, petition or more protests and rallies.

Every year the Friday closest to my birthday two important events happen on the same day at the same time, forcing the community to show where their values truly lie. On April 23, 2010 the University of Cincinnati held Relay for Life on the same night as the community event for Take Back the Night. Relay for Life is “a world-wide fundraiser for cancer research and awareness,” explains UC’s independent student newspaper, The News Record. The event raised $110,000 for the American Cancer Society and people from almost every part of the University of Cincinnati community participated to make this event possible. The mandatory or semi-mandatory participation of Greek life and other student organizations on campus mandated that these UC students attend Relay for life, and therefore missing the Cincinnati community Take Back the Night events.

Take Back the Night is an internationally held march and rally intended as a protest and direct action against rape and other forms of sexual violence,” explains Wikipedia. This year the events started with an empowering performance of the Coochie Chronicles on UC’s campus sponsored by the Women’s Center and Ethnic Programs and Services, then the few UC students who weren’t at Relay for life boarded a bus to head downtown for the Cincinnati community Take Back the Night events.

More...

Last week I went to Columbus to participate in the Ohio Prevention First Lobby day. The Ohio Advocates hosted a regional training regarding issues of comprehensive sex ed and especially focusing on media messaging the evening before. It was a great opportunity for Columbus are activists to learn about Advocates for Youth campaigns and network with each other.

Then for the lobby day we got a quick debriefing on important Ohio legislation and then marched over to the statehouse. My meeting with a legislative aide was awesome, Senator Smith is already a co-sponsor of Ohio Prevention First and we just got to thank her for all of her support.

Check out the video to get a taste of what Ohio activists are all about!

This weekend I attended the Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender and Ally College Conference (MBLGTACC) in Madison, Wisconsin. This conference was an amazing opportunity for queer students from across the Midwest to come together to share ideas, educate each other, network, gain support, and most of all have fun. The theme of this year’s MBLGTACC was “It’s time to GET REAL! Confronting privilege, provoking dialogue, and building new foundations.” The 2010 conference aimed at being more inclusive of minorities specifically targeting the transgender community, queer people of color (QPOC), and queer people with disabilities.

To the onlooker it was clear that MBLGTACC had made a strong effort at working for inclusion of these minority groups. The conference schedule contained many sessions, workshops and caucuses in each of these areas even containing a “track” for each and representing all three within the keynote speakers.

Despite MBLGTACC’s efforts, these three minority groups found that the MBLGTACC’s follow through actually fell short. Many members of these minority groups explained that MBLGTACC wasn’t as inclusive as it could have been. Overall members of these minority groups felt that the safe spaces that were created specifically for them were not completely safe or inclusive, and there was an overall lack of education from the planning committee surrounding the issues of these three minority groups. This overall ignorance was detrimental to these groups’ ability to fully and comfortably participate within the conference.

On the other hand, the conference attendees who did not fit within these minority groups made claims of reverse discrimination. They complained that there were too many closed sessions that these conference attendees weren’t welcome at. And members of the majority- specifically white people- were made to feel uncomfortable during one of the keynotes. Mostly white conference attendees claimed that the keynote blamed them for the discrimination against people of color and that everyone needed to stand up to end racism, prejudice and discrimination.

The conference ended on a good note with the QPOC organization standing up and telling everyone that they do not intend to divide everyone, and instead they just want to express that it is everyone’s duty to make sure all conference attendees especially minorities feel safe, welcome, and respected, and that hopefully things can be improved for MBLGTACC 2011. Kate Bornstein’s support of this statement by QPOC, certainly helped for a unified end of MBLGTACC 2010.

Overall I think MBLGTACC 2010 accomplished its goals of getting real; “confronting privilege, provoking dialogue, and building new foundations.” Privilege was addressed and it got people talking and the conference ended with people starting to discuss ways to improve for the future. I just don’t think anyone was prepared for how uncomfortable it is when privilege is confronted, and there may not have been enough venues for everyone to process all that was occurring. I think MBLGTACC 2010 did a fantastic job of stirring the pot; it got everyone thinking about race, sexuality, gender, ability and a wide range of other systems of oppression. As Kate Bornstein pointed out, we can’t grow without a little pain, and these growing pains are necessary for us to work out the kinks and prepare for a new and improved MBLGTACC 2011.

Spring Awakening, hit Broadway in 2006, and made its way to Cincinnati just a few weeks ago, and I have to admit that it is now battling Wicked for my favorite musical.



SPOILER ALERT: This blog post may give away parts of the plot of Spring Awakening.

The advertisements that showed up on my television screen made the musical out to be a celebration of heterosexuality, a somewhat pukeish chick-flick. But in fact the show actually touches on almost every controversial topic available -- everything from teen suicide, gay teens, sex education and reproductive knowledge, child sexual and physical abuse, teen pregnancy, BDSM, and abortion.

The show starts with an adolescent girl begging her mother to explain to her where babies come from, and when the mother finally agrees to tell her she explains that when a man and a woman are married, the woman loves her husband very much, in a way that only a woman could love her husband and this makes her pregnant.

While this explanation seems funny and ridiculous it's not very different than the sex explanations many of my peers have received. Recently a friend told me that she and her friends were taught that sex could only happen when you were married, and since at age 14 none of her friends were married, they came to the conclusion that their sexual activity could not in fact be sex. Not an illogical conclusion for a 14-year-old to jump to.

While the musical, Spring Awakening hit Broadway in 2006, its based off a controversial play by Frank Wedekind written in 1891. 1891 -- that is what impressed me the most, that these themes, problems, and controversies, still so prevalent today, were present in the consciousness over a century ago. While I have not read or seen the original Wedekind play, I assume that the plot has remained almost the same from the play to the musical. The storyline somewhat follows the pattern of adolescents yearning for education regarding their own brewing sexualities, and the lack of that education has devastating effects.

I really suggest that everyone see it if they get the chance. (And plus our favorite Lea Michele -- Rachel from Glee -- plays the female lead, Wendla.)

 I was watching TV the other day and this commercial appeared. 


(If the video doesn't show up above, then click on this link to be directed to the video)

I was shocked. According to Amanda McDonnel-Parry on The Frisky, Folgers has a history of creating sexist commercials. (Which makes me think about the fact that my mom usually starts to tear up after such commercials). And after searching for this one on youtube I saw a wide arrange of them. 

But upon first seeing this I was completely caught off guard. That the woman would tell her father that he didn't have to worry about her anymore because she is engaged shocked me. I assumed I had misunderstand the commercial, I was just surprised that it was even on TV. 

By no means do I think that we have created a society in which sexism is no longer a problem. Sexist attitudes and beliefs are seen on a daily basis in interactions with other people, on television, in the movies etc. But really with this commercial, really? I thought we were at least passed sexism that is this blatant. 

What are everyone else's reactions to this commercial?

Every first Friday of the month queers from throughout the Cincinnati tri-state area come together to queer one lucky straight bar. This past Friday December 4^th, Guerilla Queer Bar had a World AIDS Day twist! I and 2 other campus organizers from Advocates for Youth put on our fairy wings, queered up our outfits and grabbed baskets of condoms and entered the bar. Using our condoms from the Great American Condom Campaign we handed out condoms to everyone at that bar. Not only did we bring the standard queer love to the bar that first Friday of December but this time we brought with us information on HIV and safe sex and free condoms for everyone in sight!




As a genderf*cking condom fairy I distributed condoms to groups of women sitting at tables, groups of men dancing with each other at the bar, straight guys who were planning to get laid that night and even women who told me they definitely would not be needing a condom that night. Everyone was excited to partake in the free condoms. Overall when I asked people “did you get your condoms tonight?” people dove into my basket. Excited with the free supply of the otherwise expensive but necessary protection.

Overall I was impressed, very few people turned down the free condoms and only a few looked uncomfortable by the offer. Men and women, queers and straights and everyone in between was excited!

 One of the most memorable moments was when we left the bar for a break from the madness and walked down the streets of Cincinnati to a nearby Quizno’s. Our exuberant costumes brought us attention and when we explained that we were condom fairies and offered them our basket of condoms, the regular passerby’s on the streets quickly partook. The men working at Quizno’s were very excited about the condoms and quickly filled up their pockets, and soon we found ourselves deep in conversation with them about how expensive condoms can be, and about the HIV information that we provided for them. 

 500 condoms and two hours later, we were exhausted and condom-less fairies and we were happy to go home knowing that everyone at Mac’s Bar and Grill was going to be engaging in safe sex that night. 

Yesterday December 2nd was the Stupak Day of Action. 
I am sure many of you have heard about the Stupak Amendment which was added to health care reform. the Amendment would greatly limit women's access to abortion, not permitting it to be covered under health insurance and forcing specifically lower class women to revert to unsafe means of abortion. 

At the University of Cincinnati a group of students came together to fight this blatant attack on women's rights. We received mixed responses. 

More...

This past Saturday I and other Ohio activists met in Columbus for the Ohio Youth Summit hosted by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Foundation, Equality Ohio and the Ohio Advocates. 

It was a great opportunity for young people across the state to come together and discuss issues of comprehensive sex education. The summit included sessions on online advocacy, campus organizing, community organizing, and example sessions of what a Comprehensive Sex Education classroom curriculum would look like. 

This last part was most interesting to me. As a person who went to Catholic school my whole life I was excited to see how fantastically inclusive and educational a comprehensive sex education class would be. 

Overall the information I saw was pretty positive. When Planned Parenthood presented they tried not to focus on heterosexual relationships by using gender neutral language and the youth were given concrete information on how to keep themselves safe.  

At one point the facilitator had us do an exercise where we had to go and shake hands with 3 different people to symbolize engaging in sexual activity with those people. Then we all sat down and she had 10 people stand up and let us know that for purposes of the activity they all have an STI. Then all the people who had "sexual contact" with them stood up, and the people who had sexual contact with them stood up etc until the whole room was standing. 

Then the facilitator had us turn over our paper to find a letter on the back

• A stood for "Abstinence"- The people with that letter could sit down because they chose not to have sex and were not at risk for getting an STI
• F stood for "Fooled Around"- These people chose not to engage in sex but still got to enjoy their sexuality, and they could sit down because they were not at risk for getting an STI
• S stood for "Safe Sex"- The facilitator told us that these people used condoms when engaging in anal, oral, and vaginal sex and they could sit down because they chose to keep it safe
• People with no letter did not use any protection- And they were supposed to represent those people who were at a risk for catching that STI

At the end the facilitator told us that we can't get an STI from shaking someone's hand so we can all sit down. 


It was an interesting exercise and I think it got across the point that when you engage in sexual activity you are in a sense having sex with all the people that your partner had sex with, but there are measures you can take to reduce your risk of contracting an STI. 

While the message came across just fine, I couldn't help but think that this message had nothing to do with me. The way the facilitator divided the levels of safe sex I had no idea where I fit. When I as a female-bodied person have sex with other female-bodied people how much risk am I putting myself in?   

More...

A new Oklahoma law will post personal information online. According to the Huffington Post the date of the abortion, the age, marital status, and race of the woman, as well as the number of years of education the woman had and the total number of previous pregnancies the woman had will be posted on a public website. 

Just about everything but the woman's name will be taken in this survey, and then made public. Despite the fact that the woman's name will not be listed, her personal information could allow her to be identified especially if she resides in a small town. 

Hello friends, family, and colleagues,
 
I am writing to tell you about an issue that is important to me. Sex education is an issue that effects everyone and giving youth age appropriate medically accurate information is vital to their future health. 

I encourage you to please sign this online petition and show your support of the REAL  Act http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/realact 

 That is the beginning of the email that I sent to a group of people including my parents, brother and other close friends. 

I try not to send too many petition forwards because I do not want people to begin to ignore my emails all together, but when I found out AFY was organizing an online petition to support the REAL Act I knew I had to let people know about it. After that portion of the email I gave some more information about the REAL Act and concluded the email saying 

You can make a big difference in American youth today.  Do your part, sign the petition and circulate this email to encourage others to do the same.

I didn't know if I could really expect many of the people I sent it to, to actually sign it let alone forward it. But to my surprise the next day I received emails back from both my parents letting me know they had signed it and they were proud of me. Out of all my feminist and activist friends that were included on that list, only my parents responded. I was astounded. A few hours later I received another email from my Dad. Apparently my Dad had chosen to circulate the email and encourage others to sign the petition as well. I was astounded and impressed. He sent the petition to half of the faculty at the school he teaches at as well as friends he had across the country. 

More...

CBS sit-com "Two and a Half Men" highlights the lives of a nerdy father, Alan, and his pre-pubescent son, Jake,  who move in with Charlie, Alan's bachelor brother. The show is sexist at best. It's the classic bachelor pad sit-com, treating women as things to be used and tossed away, and highlighting the ridiculousities of the brothers' lives while the young boy just follows in his uncle's footsteps. 

I don't pay for cable, so I am stuck watching whatever is on the few channels that I actually get, therefore the only reason that I caught this episode is because I like background noise during dinner. 

And in retrospect I am pretty glad that I caught this rerun. It features the womanizing brother character, Charlie who has been contacted by a previous girlfriend, Jill. He is excited to meet her because she stands out amongst all of his other lovers simply because of her aggressive nature and other non-gender-conforming behaviors. He goes to meet this Jill and ends up waiting at the bar with a man named Bill. Charlie assumes that both he and Bill have been stood up, until Bill explains that he is actually the one that Charlie was waiting for, and Bill is in fact Jill. 

More...

Marty Klein, explains on his blog that the state of Massachusetts has recently introduced a law that makes any pornographic pictures or videos of elders or the disabled illegal. Similar to the laws against child pornography it makes it illegal for any elder (defined as 60 and above) or disabled person (defined as “a person with a permanent or long-term physical or mental impairment that prevents or restricts the individual’s ability to provide for his or her own care or protection”) to pose nude or sexually and the law would criminalize both the model and the photographer.

Apparently this was created in an effort to end the abuse of the elderly and disabled but I do not think treating them like children and taking away their agency is the way to do that. It completely invalidates the idea that the elderly and disabled also have sex lives. And ignores the market for elderly and disabled pornography. 

It makes me sick that things like this still occur. 

Dr. Marty Klein, a sex therapist whom I recently heard speak during Sexual Health Week at the University of Cincinnati recently wrote in his blog  about a PETA commercial denied a spot during the Superbowl because of its blatant sexuality. Klein states that the NBC denied the commercial on the grounds that it was a “home strip-tease.” The commercial shows women in sexy attire, erotically touching various pieces of fruit and vegetables. Klein claims that NBC’s refusal to play PETA’s commercial is an assault on our civil rights and our sexualities.

Up until this point I agree with him. Then I compared his thoughts on the topic to an article by feminist, Elana Centor on blogher.com. Centor notes that PETA has a history of using controversial tactics to advocate for animal rights and they all seem to be targeting women. Centor notes that their tactic of throwing buckets of red paint upon women wearing fur coats was not equally carried out, because no men wearing leather shoes or belts were ever similarly assaulted. This made me think. While I may not be completely up to date on my PETA history, Centor makes a valid point. Centor makes another point that stood out even more to me. She highlighted an advertisement campaign used by PETA in the 80's that clearly upset Centor and me as well. (I can't get the image to show up directly in this blog but please look at the image because any description I give will not provide the proper injustice.)

More...

 I don’t want to get sentimental or gushy or by any means appear patriotic but I think everyone enjoys the cozy feeling of solidarity. I watched the inauguration today on cnn.com. CNN had paired with facebook for the viewing so that while you watched they showed you the statuses of all the other facebook users who were watching the inauguration on CNN. This way you could somewhat communicate and see what other people were thinking.

As I watched the preparations for the inauguration, while I listened to those familiar patriotic tunes -songs based upon violence, militancy and death- I saw the thoughts of young facebook users around the world. As important political figures filed in, ready for the inauguration, in preparation of watching history in the making, people commented from different countries. Congratulations from Mexico or Nigeria, or words in another language that I couldn’t even understand. People commented on how excited they were, how the day was finally here as Obama entered the mall. People noted the tears in their eyes as Obama was sworn in, they rejoiced as Obama began his speech. They congratulated the country, themselves, all the people on facebook and cnn.com about our new president. People thanked god, and toasted to the next four years. It was such a strong feeling of unity and pride among all these people just like me. Among all these young people on a social networking site that connects us around the world. Many people informed us of goose bumps or how in awe they were during Obama’s speech, they took empowering lines from his speech and made them their status. Many commented on how we were watching history in the making. A few people made jokes about a president who can speak with complete sentences and without making up his own words. Lots of people told us that they were crying from where ever they were viewing at work, at home, at school.

I voted for Obama because I had to vote. I voted for Obama because he was the best choice we had. I didn’t vote for Obama because I thought he was the best person for the job. I really didn’t want to vote, I didn’t like either of the choices. But it was my first election. I’m 19 years old, if I didn’t vote they would just owe it up to those apethetic young people who don’t get involved with politics. So I voted. I could have voted for a third party candidate but I knew that I did not want McCain and Palin in office and a third party vote would be a vote taken away from Obama.

But today while watching the inauguration I did feel proud. Not necessarily of our country but of the young activists. Of the free thinkers, of the people that are going to hold Obama accountable to his promises. As the inauguration trickled on the facebook status updates came quicker and quicker. And amid all of the patriotic bimble babble most people’s comments turned angry every time a religious figure spoke or said a prayer. “What about separation of church and state?” they all asked. I was impressed, I did not expect so many people to be on the same page as me. I was even more impressed when one facebook status jumped out at me, “It’s great to have the first black president but too bad he’s not going to do much to protect women’s abortion rights.”

Today as I watched the inauguration I was proud, I was happy, and I was excited. Not only about a democrat in the White House who can speak in complete sentences but about all the young activists who are moving and shaking and all up in arms about politics. 

        “I kissed a girl and I liked it,” the radio sang through the summer of ’08. I was intrigued. I first heard the chorus chanted throughout pride and proudly displayed across the t-shirts of the assorted dykes at the bar. Later I heard the song on Kiss FM radio and was so shocked that I sat in my car in the middle of a parking lot just to listen. I was so excited; a queer song had finally hit mainstream radio, how could anyone argue that we aren’t accepted?

            I sat in my car eagerly awaiting the queer lyrics; anticipating a refreshing break from the regular heteronormativity that clogs Kiss FM radio.

“The taste of her cherry chapstick…I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it. It felt so wrong, it felt so right. Don’t mean I’m in love tonight… I don’t even know your name… It’s not what good girls do, now how they should behave…”

The lyrics continued but I tuned out. This was no lesbian love song; this wasn’t even a queer girl singing. This wasn’t a straight girl or a female at all. This was male fantasy in song form; objectified and dehumanized; laid out for consumption. Yes, it may describe an aspect of our “culture” our “generation” in a time when we endorse the term bicurious and girls are encouraged to get drunk and make out so that straight boys can get their jollies. Don’t get me wrong I’m all for experimentation, exploration, whatever you want to call it but that should be for the individual not for the pleasure of the onlooker.

This song exemplifies the attitudes that diminish the sincerity of two girls together in a loving committed relationship. The deeper attitudes that are buried within this song keep any form of girl on girl loving from being taken seriously. A kiss between two girls is hyped up and over-sexualized in the minds of straight teenage boys. No one gets excited about a girl and a boy kissing or even about two boys kissing, but two girls kissing makes the boys go crazy. So that when the idea of lesbians is brought up all we can see is male fantasy which immediately reduces these females to something inhuman; an object for masculine enjoyment. Society can’t accept that two females might be sincere, just as sincere as any straight couple, or any gay male couple for that matter.

All summer I warded off the song like the devil, even if it meant switching the radio station every other song or even avoiding radio all together. Some days it seemed that the world was against me; I heard Katy Perry’s voice everywhere I turned, and I was without support, straight and queer friends alike danced to the song in their cars. Even my parents refused to switch the station to appease me. And the tune is so catchy I even found Katy Perry’s words leaving my lips at times.

It was a sad day when Katy Perry’s song reached number one on the top 40 charts. “Leave it to a straight girl to get a song about kissing girls to number one” my girlfriend commented. But I kept playing the radio buttons like a keyboard, anything to avoid the song. What else could I do? I had to stand by my beliefs.

But here I am 6 months later and the song still graces Kiss FM radio daily. I'm still arguing with queer friends about the song. It's still played in straight and gay bars alike. Should I just give up the protest and submit? This is the queerest thing mainstream society has given us; should I just embrace it for no other reason than that? It’s everywhere. I’m trapped; on one hand endorse a song that furthers stereotypes, objectification and the trivializing of lesbian relationships or continue the burnt out protest. I get so tired of going into this long speech every time someone tells me how great the song is. I'm just exhausted. 
 

It’s embarrassing, but true; I have a love of trashy teen dramas on the CW- One Tree Hill, Smallville, Gossip Girl. It’s a guilty pleasure, I know they are ridiculously dramatic; they promote an image of teenagers that stresses out our parents and makes us feel inadequate. And yet, I take time out of my day to watch this junk.

The latest teen soap opera the CW has developed is a show called Privileged; the classic, young, down-to-earth college graduate comes to tutor two archetypical superficial, rich, high school girls. The most recent episode focused on the issue of sex. They went all out; turning sex into a long drawn out moral conflict where in the end the with the “expert” advice of Megan (the tutor) Rose (the rich high-schooler) makes the “right” decision and does not have sex. The episode ended with the actors and actresses from the show somberly telling the audience that sex is a serious topic and should not be taken lightly, and then stating some statistics about teenage pregnancy.

The episode’s end left me with a very uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. I am split. While I agree that sex can be a very serious topic, it seems like all of these attempts at teaching sexual morality take it too seriously, making sex seem just about as fun as a funeral. And this attitude can do one of two things: scare someone away from sex forever or cause that person to tune you out, assuming that everything you are saying must be wrong because they know that sex is much more fun than you are making it out to be.

More...

When my 19 year old friend started dating a 28 year old there was definitely an unsettling feeling that spread throughout our group of friends. Nine years is a lot, it's a big difference. If you follow celebrity gossip you would learn that a large age difference in romantic relationships is means for outrage, judgment, and gossip.

I think Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore got just as much coverage as Britney Spears' bald head. But age is just another system of oppression like socioeconomic class, race, sexual orientation, and gender. Yet it seems more socially acceptable to pass judgment on someone who dates outside of their age group than it is to pass judgment on someone who dates outside of their race or socioeconomic class.

More...