Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Zoe Armstrong: Five Ways to Fake a Break and Avoid Parenting Burnout
How To Help Victims Of The Tornado
Food, Sex, and the American Teen
Filed under: Opinions
My oldest daughter is nine years old and like so many other moms of nine year olds, I spend a lot of my time trying to protect her from a culture that beckons her to prematurely abandon her American Girl dolls for a preternatural sexiness. In my quest to preserve her girlhood by monitoring her television, clothing, and yes, even her friendships, I have occasionally been asked to consider if I am being too controlling.
Likewise, last week when I appeared on CNN.com to discuss the recent FDA decision to make the morning after pill available to 17-year-olds without a prescription or parental permission, I was accused of being too controlling. After all, my opponent contended, it's not my business. Conservatives, he argued, are hypocrites who want the government out of everything but sex. Right back at you, I thought, liberals try to regulate everything but sex.
That is why a recent and thoughtful essay by Mary Eberstadt, titled "Is Food the New Sex?" caught my attention. In it, Eberstadt makes the case that over the last fifty years our culture "has taken long standing morality about sex, and substituted it onto food. The all-you-can-eat buffet is now stigmatized; the sexual smorgasbord is not."
How many parents feel perfectly comfortable moralizing about "good" foods and "bad" foods with their kids, but are uneasy discussing the moral component of sex? These days, Eberstadt notes insightfully, the word "guilt" is more likely to be used in conjunction with a missed workout than with premarital sex.
Just think, the same people who have no problem imposing moral judgments on other people's kids' food choices (i.e. removing soda machines from schools, banning birthday cup cakes from classrooms, and instituting junk food lunch box inspections) consider it the height of impoliteness to impose sexual morality or judgments on these same kids by, say, demanding an abstinence program in schools that mirrors some families' moral code.
We sound off to kids regularly about the physical consequences of a bad diet (obesity, high cholesterol, heart disease), or even the emotional toll (low self esteem and depression). And while we talk to our kids about the physical consequences of sex (pregnancy, STDs, HIV/AIDS), too many of us are less likely to discuss with equal gravity the emotional damage (low self esteem, sexual jealousy, premature attachments, and post-abortion depression).
The truth is that as societal rules for adult sexual behavior have loosened, or rather, fallen away, we have become increasingly reluctant to impose and enforce sexual norms and standards for kids. Interestingly, as the sexual moral rules for teens and pre-teens come down, we are erecting new and stringent moral codes about our kids' food choices. The result is what Mary Eberstadt calls a culture of "mindful eating, and mindless sex."
Look, I'm a mom who makes home-cooked meals and shops organic. I'm comfortable making moral judgments about food – I just think that it should also extend to other areas of our lives, including the sexually saturated culture our kids and teens swim in. After all...we are what we eat.
Likewise, last week when I appeared on CNN.com to discuss the recent FDA decision to make the morning after pill available to 17-year-olds without a prescription or parental permission, I was accused of being too controlling. After all, my opponent contended, it's not my business. Conservatives, he argued, are hypocrites who want the government out of everything but sex. Right back at you, I thought, liberals try to regulate everything but sex.
That is why a recent and thoughtful essay by Mary Eberstadt, titled "Is Food the New Sex?" caught my attention. In it, Eberstadt makes the case that over the last fifty years our culture "has taken long standing morality about sex, and substituted it onto food. The all-you-can-eat buffet is now stigmatized; the sexual smorgasbord is not."
How many parents feel perfectly comfortable moralizing about "good" foods and "bad" foods with their kids, but are uneasy discussing the moral component of sex? These days, Eberstadt notes insightfully, the word "guilt" is more likely to be used in conjunction with a missed workout than with premarital sex.
Just think, the same people who have no problem imposing moral judgments on other people's kids' food choices (i.e. removing soda machines from schools, banning birthday cup cakes from classrooms, and instituting junk food lunch box inspections) consider it the height of impoliteness to impose sexual morality or judgments on these same kids by, say, demanding an abstinence program in schools that mirrors some families' moral code.
We sound off to kids regularly about the physical consequences of a bad diet (obesity, high cholesterol, heart disease), or even the emotional toll (low self esteem and depression). And while we talk to our kids about the physical consequences of sex (pregnancy, STDs, HIV/AIDS), too many of us are less likely to discuss with equal gravity the emotional damage (low self esteem, sexual jealousy, premature attachments, and post-abortion depression).
The truth is that as societal rules for adult sexual behavior have loosened, or rather, fallen away, we have become increasingly reluctant to impose and enforce sexual norms and standards for kids. Interestingly, as the sexual moral rules for teens and pre-teens come down, we are erecting new and stringent moral codes about our kids' food choices. The result is what Mary Eberstadt calls a culture of "mindful eating, and mindless sex."
Look, I'm a mom who makes home-cooked meals and shops organic. I'm comfortable making moral judgments about food – I just think that it should also extend to other areas of our lives, including the sexually saturated culture our kids and teens swim in. After all...we are what we eat.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- Why should anyone listen to a _____, what makes her an expert? Harpo is jus an actress, all she does is sit on her tush & claim she knows it all. ...
- Cant upload foia for federal election commission primary election results or general for derian douglas hickman or the e-mail
- Divorce reasons wife does not want IVF, Donor Sperm
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
The Academy of Pediatrics Says Married Same-Sex Parents Are Best For Kids
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a policy statement supporting gay marriage - saying allowing same-sex parents to marry is in the best interest of their children.
-
Is Porn Teaching Your Kids About Sex?
Cris Clapp Logan, internet safety expert, talks about the importance of parents having ongoing discussions with their kids and teens about sex as opposed to a one-time "sex talk," or worse, allowing them to learn about sexuality through television and the internet.
-
%media:title.value% %media:description.value%
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
5-12-2009 @ 4:22PM
LS said..."We are what we eat"... YIKES!!! The imagery!!! I think I went blind for a minute there.... heh.
Seriously - Hurray! I never thought of that parallel, but as someone who struggled with the whole sexuality thing when I was in school, and now struggles with my weight - I can absolutely see the parallels. Problem is, I've never been able to enjoy guilt-free! When I was a teen, sex still had a lot of guilt attached to it (at least it did in my social circle). Now that it's ok to have free sex, I'm married, so it's not "free", and the only vice left to me - food - is saddled with more guilt than a pack horse.
But this really does present the argument in a different light. Thanks for making the parallels - it's certainly a lot to chew on.
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 5:14PM
PaulB said...Yeah well I hope it's not going to be worst in the future (can you imagine to have childrens with common sexual experience before 12 or even 10 !)
By the way, hilarious video if you're in the business :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlFL-uJ4hmw
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 11:48PM
Kirstie said...Well, if you're going to look at it that way - many studies have shown that the increased 'moralization' of food choice/control is proving to be detrimental to kids in many ways. It's been reasoned that the intense scrutiny of every morsel of food kids eat these days, and the absolute fear mongering in regards to sugar and fat (Sugar's evil! Fat's evil! Um, no they're not. Fruit has sugar, nuts have fat.) We're teaching kids early on that dieting is acceptable, even expected, of everyone, and that there is such a thing as a "good" or "bad" food, when there clearly isn't. "Bad" foods are just fine in moderation, and even the "good" ones are bad in excess.
Teaching children restraint, logical thinking in regards to physical and emotional needs, and how to make a good judgment call is what's needed, not black-and-white, absolutely definitive proclamations of what's "good" and "bad" - most definitely in the case of food (which I know was not the main point here but is something I'm highly passionate about), but also in regards to sexual education. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that abstinence SHOULD be taught in schools, because it is the safest choice and the one that I hope my kids will choose (when I have them, I'm not even married yet myself!). But in all likelihood, they won't - and even if they do, many of their peers will not. Not teaching the other methods of (admittedly less reliable, but still better than using nothing!) contraceptives would be unfair to those individuals, who do have free will and the ability to decide what they believe is best for themselves, even if it may or may not be what actually is.
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 10:03AM
Mary Sullivan said...I'm really glad Kristie made these points about food. Childhood obesity is a major health issue in the USA, but getting hysterical about it doesn't help kids. Exercise and moderation work; freaking out over each little bite of sugar does not. With obesity on one hand and a rise in eating disorders (striking kids younger and younger) on the other, it's not hard to see our attitudes on food are messed up.
I read the post a couple times and am still having trouble getting the food-sex connection in terms of parenting. Unless, again, it's about moderation: a very severe sex is bad!! stance (like a parallel one with junk food) will only make it more exciting for kids. We need to demystify sex--and food--and help our kids make smart, healthy choices. Sex before 18, in my opinion, is not a healthy or smart choice, and I won't hesitate to tell the kids that. So far we've only discussed it in the context of marriage, as they are 12, 10, and 10; male; and (frankly) not that curious yet about sex. I'm sure the conversations will get more interesting as they get older. My parents told us nothing at all, which wasn't ideal.
regards,
Mary
http://www.squidoo.com/dad-gifts
5-13-2009 @ 12:55AM
Tired said...If you really believe that "liberals are trying to regulate everything but sex," then you are uninformed, and truthfully, rather spiteful.
I have always lived my life conservatively. I was raised by parents "from the old country" who never allowed my sisters and I to have boyfriends in high school. Sure, like every teenager, my sisters and I would sneak around behind my parents backs, but it was always innocent (never sex or drugs). My parents taught us that our teenage years were a time to grow, a time to study hard, and there would be time for a love life when we were more mature. The maturity and values instilled by my parents carried me throughout high school, college, and even graduate school. When parents set limits, children will always push pass those limits, but the distance they travel is always relative to their parents boundaries. With proper discourse and rules in the home, teenagers can be taught priorities (school, family, work) and consequences of bad decision making (drugs, pregnancies, future career).
With that said, I am a liberal, but not by your definition. I do not need the government to force religion, prayer, sexual morality, or intervention on the right of a teenage girl to prevent pregnancy/abortion. The government didn't tell me not to sleep around, my parents did. It is the job of parents to guide their children, not the government. If you are afraid of losing your rights as a parent, then in essence, you're afraid that your parenting will fail twice (1st when your daughter had sex, 2nd when she took the morning after pill without telling you). I refuse to accept that a safe, FDA-approved method in preventing teen pregnancy costs parents any rights just because insecure parents need their rights underscored by the government. You say that the government is taking away your right to parent by allowing your children to circumvent you and get this pill. Well, I say you're taking away a 17 year old's right to choose to not have an abortion or a child when they lack family support. Those are both major decisions that will impact her the rest of her life, and if they could be prevented, then we would be better off as a society.
A child can be born with or without your permission, and by the same logic, pregnancy prevention should also be allowed with or without your permission.
Also consider that the faster you take this pill, the more effective it is (up to 72 hours). The longer you wait, the less effective it is. So it is also possible to lose effectiveness while waiting to sort through the family drama before getting a signature. The government should only intervene when it's a question of safety, and I hope there will be some regulations on the frequency of acquiring this pill, etc. But worrying over cramping when the alternative is pregnancy (talk about bodily changes) or abortion (scary) is just tangential to the major issue here, which is people's rights, and who's are more important: a 17 year old (who will live with an abortion/child the rest of her life), or the parents (who needs to feel a government cushion in case their parenting wasn't enough).
I'm not telling you to not be controlling with your children. In fact, just the opposite; I wish more parents were strict these days. I think that it's the tight-knit families with involved parents that should feel the least threatened of all by this decision.
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 4:08PM
LS said...Well articulated argument with only one problem. It's the same one used by the Feds: "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you care that we're stripping away your rights before your very eyes?"
Only yours is, "If you're a good parent, why should you care that we're undermining what you say?"
The government should be OUT. Completely OUT. They have proven over and over again that they are incompetent, at best.
Parents are struggling every day to give their children a moral base. And while they're in their homes saying, "no, wait for sex", the government is in the schools saying, "go ahead, everyone's doing it. Here's a condom, here's a pill, here's an abortion. DON'T TELL YOUR PARENTS."
And you think that shouldn't bother good parents? Really?
5-13-2009 @ 11:13PM
Tired said...To Glorious:
"Of course, Liberals can say whatever they want, as ugly as they want. But let conservatives say what their belief/opinions are, watch out! We are uninformed and spiteful. Talk about hypocritical narrow-mindedness."
You might have a point if I insulted conservatives as a whole, but I was only talking to the author of this article, not conservatives as a whole. Making a wide, degrading generalization about liberals (or conservatives, or any group for that matter) is unnecessary and unproductive. That's the point. I didn't called her uniformed and spiteful because she's a conservative. I called her (specifically) uninformed for making a wide-generalization of liberals with a statement that is not accurate. I called her spiteful because someone made an baseless, inappropriate insult at her, and she made the same baseless, inappropriate insult right back. That's spiteful, regardless of party lines. You, on the other hand, made another wide generalization about how liberals deem conservative opinions uninformed and spiteful. The difference is, I made a valid point specific to something mentioned in this article. You just made a baseless generalization in an effort to attack liberals, and defend conservatives. I apologize if conservatives interpreted my comment as an attack. It was only made to show how bold generalizations are uninformed, and in this case, was said out of defense and spite.
To LS:
The government isn't telling young girls to go out and have sex. The media, their peers, even the lax parents of their peers have a much greater influence on teenagers choosing to have sex.
The government is reactive to the social changes in our society. Teen sex rates have increased, thereby increasing teen pregnancy and STDs, and the government has enacted programs and efforts to reduce the consequences of teen sex. If you are calling for no birth control, no abortions, then what is your solution to the startling teenage pregnancy rates in this country, particularly involving those born below the poverty line? Sex ed should teach these children about abstinence, about consequences of sex (pregnancy, diseases), and also about their prevention. Nearly 50% of teenagers have had sex by the time their 19. That number will not decrease with a required parental signature on Plan B, nor will it increase without one, but it does stand to possibly reduce pregnancy rates. My rational is that teenage pregnancy has gradually decreased over the past 20 years, while the percentage of sexually active teens has stayed steady, even though birth control has become more available. This suggests that certain variables (sex ed? availability of birth control?) may have taught/aided teen pregnancy prevention, without influencing an increase in sexual activity.
The key is to face the consequences of teenagers having sex. You are calling for government to butt out of a 17 yr old's relationship with her parents, because she is just a minor, and statistically, a minor who has a 50% chance of being sexually active (likely behind their backs). But the word "minor" is a government label that you are seeking cover under. A year later, your children will be legally allowed to smoke. Is that also taking away your parental rights? No, I would assume, because they are no longer considered "minors" by the government, so your parental rights are still intact. This rational of worrying about what the technicality of what the government determines as a "minor" when it comes to teen pregnancy (while crying for less government intervention) does not make very much sense. Minors are having sex without parental permission, therefore, minors should have access to pregnancy prevention without permission.
Just because something is legal, it does not mean it is encouraged by the government, and it does not mean you are losing your rights to parent your child with values you see fit. It just makes statistical sense in the same way it makes statistical sense that active and involved parents are less likely to have pregnant daughters. Greater available prevention translates into less pregnancies and abortions. I just hope that it is safely administered (with in depth explanations) and regulated to prevent frequent dosing so it does not become a teen's only form of birth control.
Reply
5-16-2009 @ 12:42PM
Sifrina said...You say: "...as the sexual moral rules for teens and pre-teens come down, we are erecting new and stringent moral codes about our kids' food choices."
This is a catchy phrase but it simply makes no sense. You'd prefer the imposition of strict moral codes about kids' "sex choices" over food. But you don't make moral codes about choices - whether about food or sex. The point is, that kids need to learn how to make their own good choices on a variety of critical things that significantly affect them and their health. Look, I totally agree that this society is oversexualized and overall many parents are neglecting their teenage children when it comes to their sexual, ethical, and moral development, but these are my morals and people disagree. As I'm sure you know, there are some people with a stricter moral code than yours. We don't all share the same code about such things. Food nutrition is different - it is basic sciense, less subjective.
I'll admit I'm pretty controlling (my son is 6), but I recognize that my job is to expose my son to as many healthy things as I can so he can learn how to make his own good choices. I don't demand that all the food in the cafeteria be nutritious/organic, just some so he can have the option to make some good choices (but probably not always; I'm not naive). I also hope that as he gets older there will be some activities/things for him to gravitate to that are not oversexualized. But like it or not sex and teenage sex abound in this society and I can't impose my moral code on the rest of society or make it free of sexual images/choices, nor can I impose my moral code on my son or expect him to always make good choices (on food or sex). In my view, dictating choices (which is not a choice) or dictating moral codes to your children is less likely to be successful in the end. All I can do is be there for my son, expose him to all the healthy options I can, and give him some gradual freedom to make his own choices (hard to do but I will have to). The rest is up to him....
Reply
5-22-2009 @ 5:24PM
Jessica said...While I agree with the majority of what was said in this article, I can't help but wonder if it was just another politically charged rant about how liberals are evil.
Besides, I've been to health class several times in the recent past in a state known to be liberal and teachers still touch upon the emotional impact of sex and the importance of waiting until you're ready, so I don't know how anyone can blame the system for underage sexuality. However, yes, parents, the media and society leave much to be desired.
Reply
7-04-2009 @ 4:03PM
Sonja said...Hi Rachel, I'm a little late to this post, but I don't get much free time on the net with a little one, but was doing some back reading today...
I just wanted to applaud you for protecting your children's innocence. It's not controlling. It's called parenting.
Good for you!
Reply