Form and Substance
Fox News had a little piece on the condom video yesterday. They interviewed our Christine Grewell on-camera, and the CRC's President Michelle Turner.
It wasn't a bad piece, just a few seconds to fill in the time, but it does kind of point to some interesting dimensions to the discussion.
The anchor starts out with a little intro that ends:
Well, the fact is, the school district made this video as boring as they possible could. There's no doubt, that was their intent. It's repetitive, with no music, a blurry computer-generated background behind text, most of the time. When there is a person, his head is cut off, so you aren't distracted by any personality, or facial expressions, or anything. Everybody knows it's boring. It's not a conservative-versus-liberal thing. (And anyway, I have heard CRC complain more about the boringness of it than anybody on our side.)
Bingo. Thank you, Christine.
Funny, she doesn't say she "wishes abstinence had been stressed a little harder." These news guys, they kill me.
Listen, everybody knows there was a lawsuit here in Montgomery County, over the sex-ed curriculum. Everybody knows that the controversy had to do with a new condom video, which was called Protect Yourself, and the sexual orientation lessons.
One thing that people forget is that the lawsuit barely mentioned the condom video, and it wasn't part of the settlement agreement at all. The school district decided to produce a new one, not because any judge told them to, or because they had to as part of a settlement agreement, but because the Superintendent thought it could've been better.
You can see in this interview that the CRC's compaints are, really, cosmetic. They didn't like that the girl was cute. They didn't like that it was a cucumber. The movie was "too relaxed, too informal."
Another thing that people forget is that there already is a condom video, Hope Is Not a Method, which is being used in classes today. And while the CRC types complained because Protect Yourself mentioned that you should use a condom for anal and oral sex, the fact is, Hope Is Not a Method says the exact same thing. (Also, in my humble opinion, and hopefully I can say this without hurting anybody's feelings, I thought the girl in Hope Is Not a Method was cuter than the one in Protect Yourself.)
Uh ... lifelike? It looks like an oversized chess piece to me.
It's funny, there have been kind of a lot of comments about the production style of the video. As you see from Ms. Turner's comments, the complaints about Protect Yourself were really mostly about the look-and-feel, not much about what it said.
The "medium is the message" kind of analysis tells you a lot. Clearly, judging from the anti-MCPS side's comments, the meta-message is at least as important as the facts, or lack thereof, contained in the video. The last one had a cute girl, this one has a beheaded man; the last one had music, and people in the background, and a cast of a dozen or so young people; this one has generic blur for a background, no music, and a cast of ... somewhat less than one entire human being.
I am a little concerned about the message that is conveyed by the medium. For one thing, I think critics should seriously consider whether you want the act of putting on a condom to be something that only guys do. The message here is that women have nothing to say about it, nothing to do with it, they're passive observers of the act. (If that -- maybe they're supposed to keep their heads under the covers while all this is going on.) Teenagers watching the movie won't complain about this, of course, but I doubt they are impervious to the implication.
The intentional boringness of it will be well understood by all, teenagers and adults, to convey the message that sex is embarrassing, dirty, something we have to talk about, but we're not going to show our faces while we do it. There is simply no doubt about this message -- we are surrounded by vibrant, expressive, eye-catching, video material, from television to YouTube, and the Ben Stein-ness of this thing is not something you can ignore. Kids will get it.
But even beyond the generic background, there is this idea that they cut the guy's head off. Sex is dirty, sure, kids hear that all the time, that's just grown-ups.
But the idea that sex is impersonal, that's an entirely different message. And is that what you want to convey, really? It seems to me that sex is best, from almost all points of view, when it is shared with someone you love. We can quibble about whether you should wait for marriage, or just until a relationship is sufficiently serious, but all sides agree (I hesitate to speak for CRC, but I'd be pretty sure here) that sex with strangers is not a good idea. So why is this man in the video hiding his face?
Reactions are pretty strong on this topic. I got one email from a mom who said it was ... too coincidental that the example penis is wooden-- the entire video is wooden. Definitely I don't want my child coming out of this class absorbing the subtext of this video. I would opt out.
My opinion is this. I am sure that a good number of the kids will perfectly well understand that grown-ups want them to think that sex is dull dull dull, and they will see the production for what it is. Any parent knows that look, when a kid's eyes glass over, when you've slipped into Lecture Mode. But I am not so negative about the production quality of the video. I think kids will watch it, and that they can learn something even from a video as boring as this, because, duh -- it's about sex. You're going to hear words like "penis" in class. You're going to see that kinda penis-looking wood thing. They're going to show you a condom. They'll keep their eyes open for that.
And also, I think students will want to learn this stuff. It affects them personally, very personally, if not tonight then maybe in a couple of years, and they'll want to know how to do this.
So I'm not worried about the dullness of the production. But look, this same premise goes in another direction, too. If kids will watch it because they want to learn the truth about how to use the condom, then that is a good reason to give them more information.
It may be a little crazy of me, but over the weekend I typed up the whole video script in two columns. On the left, I put the text that appears on the screen, and on the right, the spoken narration that goes with it. And let me tell you, from 0:40 to 1:16 in the video they tell you how to examine a condom. That's thirty-sex seconds. Then they review. Then, from 1:50 to 2:26, they tell you how to put it on. That's another thirty-six seconds. Then they review some more. Finally, from 3:00 to 3:19, they tell you how to remove it -- nineteen whole seconds. That adds up to 91 seconds, or just a minute and a half, of actual, new information. Everything else is either boilerplate or review.
I'm thinking that maybe we need to talk about content, more than the appearance of this video.
It wasn't a bad piece, just a few seconds to fill in the time, but it does kind of point to some interesting dimensions to the discussion.
The anchor starts out with a little intro that ends:
... now a new video is out and as Fox 5 's John Henrehan found out, conservatives are mostly praising this version but liberals wonder if it's too boring.
Well, the fact is, the school district made this video as boring as they possible could. There's no doubt, that was their intent. It's repetitive, with no music, a blurry computer-generated background behind text, most of the time. When there is a person, his head is cut off, so you aren't distracted by any personality, or facial expressions, or anything. Everybody knows it's boring. It's not a conservative-versus-liberal thing. (And anyway, I have heard CRC complain more about the boringness of it than anybody on our side.)
John Henrehan: The dispute is not over whether Montgomery County teenagers should be taught about condoms but over the content and the style of presentation. Some parents believe information about condoms is crucial.
Christine Grewell: With consistent and correct usage, condoms can be 98 percent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. With typical usage, they're about 85 percent effective. So we'd like to gun that up from the 85 to 98 percent with some good training.
Bingo. Thank you, Christine.
Henrehan: But the last proposed sex education curriculum for 10th graders sparked objections.
Michelle Turner: The cucumber for starters. This is a mature subject and we should be teaching and talking to these kids in a mature manner and using a cucumber is just the silliest thing.
Henrehan: Parent Michelle Turner wishes abstinence had been stressed a little harder.
Turner: It was a little too relaxed, too informal, more Hollywood type presentation. I think that young men would have been distracted by the attractiveness of the young woman who was doing the video.
Funny, she doesn't say she "wishes abstinence had been stressed a little harder." These news guys, they kill me.
Listen, everybody knows there was a lawsuit here in Montgomery County, over the sex-ed curriculum. Everybody knows that the controversy had to do with a new condom video, which was called Protect Yourself, and the sexual orientation lessons.
One thing that people forget is that the lawsuit barely mentioned the condom video, and it wasn't part of the settlement agreement at all. The school district decided to produce a new one, not because any judge told them to, or because they had to as part of a settlement agreement, but because the Superintendent thought it could've been better.
You can see in this interview that the CRC's compaints are, really, cosmetic. They didn't like that the girl was cute. They didn't like that it was a cucumber. The movie was "too relaxed, too informal."
Another thing that people forget is that there already is a condom video, Hope Is Not a Method, which is being used in classes today. And while the CRC types complained because Protect Yourself mentioned that you should use a condom for anal and oral sex, the fact is, Hope Is Not a Method says the exact same thing. (Also, in my humble opinion, and hopefully I can say this without hurting anybody's feelings, I thought the girl in Hope Is Not a Method was cuter than the one in Protect Yourself.)
Henrehan: Now there's a new proposed sex ed tape. The new condom video, instead of using a cucumber, uses an anatomically correct male organ. It is so lifelike , we're a little reluctant to put in on a television newscast.
Uh ... lifelike? It looks like an oversized chess piece to me.
Video: Be sure to open the packet carefully.
Henrehan: This time, it's a male narrator and you see only his hands. The social conservatives kind of like this one, but the liberals wonder if its too dull.
Grewell: Well, I did hear one of the comments from one of the student members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, that was the first thing out of her mouth, "Oh, that was so boring, I fell asleep after two minutes into the film." That was from a student.
It's funny, there have been kind of a lot of comments about the production style of the video. As you see from Ms. Turner's comments, the complaints about Protect Yourself were really mostly about the look-and-feel, not much about what it said.
The "medium is the message" kind of analysis tells you a lot. Clearly, judging from the anti-MCPS side's comments, the meta-message is at least as important as the facts, or lack thereof, contained in the video. The last one had a cute girl, this one has a beheaded man; the last one had music, and people in the background, and a cast of a dozen or so young people; this one has generic blur for a background, no music, and a cast of ... somewhat less than one entire human being.
I am a little concerned about the message that is conveyed by the medium. For one thing, I think critics should seriously consider whether you want the act of putting on a condom to be something that only guys do. The message here is that women have nothing to say about it, nothing to do with it, they're passive observers of the act. (If that -- maybe they're supposed to keep their heads under the covers while all this is going on.) Teenagers watching the movie won't complain about this, of course, but I doubt they are impervious to the implication.
The intentional boringness of it will be well understood by all, teenagers and adults, to convey the message that sex is embarrassing, dirty, something we have to talk about, but we're not going to show our faces while we do it. There is simply no doubt about this message -- we are surrounded by vibrant, expressive, eye-catching, video material, from television to YouTube, and the Ben Stein-ness of this thing is not something you can ignore. Kids will get it.
But even beyond the generic background, there is this idea that they cut the guy's head off. Sex is dirty, sure, kids hear that all the time, that's just grown-ups.
But the idea that sex is impersonal, that's an entirely different message. And is that what you want to convey, really? It seems to me that sex is best, from almost all points of view, when it is shared with someone you love. We can quibble about whether you should wait for marriage, or just until a relationship is sufficiently serious, but all sides agree (I hesitate to speak for CRC, but I'd be pretty sure here) that sex with strangers is not a good idea. So why is this man in the video hiding his face?
Reactions are pretty strong on this topic. I got one email from a mom who said it was ... too coincidental that the example penis is wooden-- the entire video is wooden. Definitely I don't want my child coming out of this class absorbing the subtext of this video. I would opt out.
My opinion is this. I am sure that a good number of the kids will perfectly well understand that grown-ups want them to think that sex is dull dull dull, and they will see the production for what it is. Any parent knows that look, when a kid's eyes glass over, when you've slipped into Lecture Mode. But I am not so negative about the production quality of the video. I think kids will watch it, and that they can learn something even from a video as boring as this, because, duh -- it's about sex. You're going to hear words like "penis" in class. You're going to see that kinda penis-looking wood thing. They're going to show you a condom. They'll keep their eyes open for that.
And also, I think students will want to learn this stuff. It affects them personally, very personally, if not tonight then maybe in a couple of years, and they'll want to know how to do this.
So I'm not worried about the dullness of the production. But look, this same premise goes in another direction, too. If kids will watch it because they want to learn the truth about how to use the condom, then that is a good reason to give them more information.
It may be a little crazy of me, but over the weekend I typed up the whole video script in two columns. On the left, I put the text that appears on the screen, and on the right, the spoken narration that goes with it. And let me tell you, from 0:40 to 1:16 in the video they tell you how to examine a condom. That's thirty-sex seconds. Then they review. Then, from 1:50 to 2:26, they tell you how to put it on. That's another thirty-six seconds. Then they review some more. Finally, from 3:00 to 3:19, they tell you how to remove it -- nineteen whole seconds. That adds up to 91 seconds, or just a minute and a half, of actual, new information. Everything else is either boilerplate or review.
I'm thinking that maybe we need to talk about content, more than the appearance of this video.
posted by JimK at 1:20 PM
18 Comments:
"The school district decided to produce a new one, not because any judge told them to, or because they had to as part of a settlement agreement, but because the Superintendent thought it could've been better."
You're right that they weren't required to change it. This comment about the Superintendent is a complete misconstrual though. More likely they scrapped the old because they were thrown off guard by judge's findings about their unconstitutional conduct and were worried about the political complications.
"Another thing that people forget is that there already is a condom video, Hope Is Not a Method, which is being used in classes today."
Is it being used? People probably know about because all the propaganda about needing one implied that one didn't already exist. The teachers were saying it didn't and that MCPS was backward because of it.
I am a little concerned about the message that is conveyed by the medium. For one thing, I think critics should seriously consider whether you want the act of putting on a condom to be something that only guys do. The message here is that women have nothing to say about it, nothing to do with it, they're passive observers of the act. (If that -- maybe they're supposed to keep their heads under the covers while all this is going on.) Teenagers watching the movie won't complain about this, of course, but I doubt they are impervious to the implication.
"The intentional boringness of it will be well understood by all, teenagers and adults, to convey the message that sex is embarrassing, dirty, something we have to talk about, but we're not going to show our faces while we do it."
Maybe the message is that it's something to be discreet about. I really don't think you need to worry about sex getting a bad rap among teens.
"But even beyond the generic background, there is this idea that they cut the guy's head off. Sex is dirty, sure, kids hear that all the time, that's just grown-ups."
Who's telling them that? They should be hearing that premarital promiscuity is immoral. That sex within marital boundaries is a superior experience. They should hear that in sex ed class.
"But the idea that sex is impersonal, that's an entirely different message. And is that what you want to convey, really?"
No, and the new video doesn't.
"It seems to me that sex is best, from almost all points of view, when it is shared with someone you love. We can quibble about whether you should wait for marriage,"
We shouldn't quibble. That is the position of every society throughout history and the oveewhelming majority of Americans think that's what kids should be taught.
"So why is this man in the video hiding his face?"
Maybe it's because it's supposed to represent the viewer. You can't see your own face.
"Reactions are pretty strong on this topic. I got one email from a mom who said it was ... too coincidental that the example penis is wooden-- the entire video is wooden. Definitely I don't want my child coming out of this class absorbing the subtext of this video. I would opt out."
Mission accomplished.
"And also, I think students will want to learn this stuff."
Oh, please. The last thing most kids want is their school teachers teaching them about sex.
"It affects them personally, very personally, if not tonight then maybe in a couple of years, and they'll want to know how to do this."
Most of them think they already know how to do it.
"So I'm not worried about the dullness of the production. But look, this same premise goes in another direction, too. If kids will watch it because they want to learn the truth about how to use the condom, then that is a good reason to give them more information."
How about if they think they already know the truth?
"I'm thinking that maybe we need to talk about content, more than the appearance of this video."
Well, if its worthless, let's get rid of it.
I don't get it! The experts said there were going to be alot of hurricanes this year because of global warming. They had to be right because their friends peer-reviewed their papers. And so far, total hurricanes hitting the US:
zilch!
There's only one explanation:
Karl Rove must have done something tricky.
p.s.
today's temperature in the nation's capital was 81
record high of 104 was set in 1881
looks like it used to get hot back then too
this global warming's been going on longer than I thought
Do you still believe that hurricanes are the only indication of global warming?
Here, read and learn some facts.
DISCOVERY REPORTS
Scientists warn melting permafrost a self-perpetuating greenhouse gas time bomb
Updated Wed. Sep. 6 2006 4:50 PM ET
Associated Press
New research is raising concerns that global warming may be triggering a self-perpetuating climate time bomb trapped in once-frozen permafrost.
SETH BORENSTEIN — As the Earth warms, greenhouse gases once stuck in the long-frozen soil are bubbling into the atmosphere in much larger amounts than previously anticipated, according to a study in Thursday's journal Nature.
Methane trapped in a special type of permafrost is bubbling up at a rate five times faster than originally measured, the journal said.
Scientists are fretting about a global warming vicious cycle that had not been part of their already gloomy climate forecasts: Warming already under way thaws permafrost, soil that had been continuously frozen for thousands of years.
Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost, and so on.
"The higher the temperature gets, the more permafrost we melt, the more tendency it is to become a more vicious cycle," said Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "That's the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tends to shut it off."
The effect reported in Nature is seen mostly in Siberia, but also elsewhere, in a type of carbon-rich permafrost, flash frozen about 40,000 years ago. A new more accurate measuring technique was used on the bubbling methane, which is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than the more prevalent carbon dioxide.
Anon said, There's only one explanation: Karl Rove must have done something tricky.
Speaking of Rove,
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_book_alleges_Rove_agnostic_stepfather_0902.html
You sure do like to bring up Karl Rove, Anon.
Are you trying to tell us something?
Jim,
You bring up a very important point. Teaching children that sexual relationships are simply about genitalia, which is what this video implies, runs counter to everything both teachthefacts and Michelle Turner are trying to express. I imagine, and Theresa can correct me if I'm wrong, that religious folks believe that they should generally face one another while making love within marriage. Having sex with a headless person is pathognomonic of a serious emotional disturbance, one we should not be encouraging in our students.
This is rather like being on the production set of "The Pirates of Penzance." Mabel has just finished her breathtaking aria "Poor Wandering One" with its staccato high e flats:
Take heart, fair days will shine;
Take any heart--take mine!
And Mabel and Frederick "Exeunt." We all know what THAT means; so do all the rest of the Major General's daughters. Edith sings:
What ought we to do,
Gentle sisters, say?
Propriety, we know,
Says we ought to stay;
While sympathy exclaims,
'Free them from their tether--
Play at other games--
Leave them here together.'
And Kate sings:
Her case may, any day,
Be yours, my dear, or mine.
Let her make her hay
While the sun doth shine.
Let us compromise,
(Our hearts are not of leather.)
Let us shut our eyes,
And talk about the weather.
And all of the Major General's daughters sing:
Yes, yes, let's talk about the weather.
How beautifully blue the sky,
The glass is rising very high,
Continue fine I hope it may,
And yet is rained but yesterday.
Tomorrow it may pour again,
(I hear the country wants some rain),
Yet people say, I know not why,
That we shall have a warm July.
Meanwhile, Mabel and Frederick off in their own little world.
Clearly, Anon has decided that the best thing to do in the face of teenagers' emerging sexuality is to close his eyes and talk about the weather. Just let the kids go off and discover sex for themselves.
Perhaps Anon believes that his daughters will be courted by pirates who turn out to be peers of the realm, and then everything will be all right.
"Sigmund said...
You sure do like to bring up Karl Rove, Anon.
Are you trying to tell us something?"
Yes. Thanks for asking.
Democrats have convinced themselves that Karl Rove out-foxed them and stole the last two elections. He's the source of all their troubles. This is similar to the current mainstream science mania with global warming. Virtually, every time a scientist now makes an unexpected observation in nature, there's some statement about how it's "probably" due to global warming. It's like a political campaign.
Actually, Bush won because Americans agreed with him on the issues and the character of the nominated Democrats.
The fault, my dear Democrats, in not in our Roves, it is in ourselves.
Just looked at the new video. While I agree with Jim that it's probably worthless in that it probably won't change any behavior, it IS a big improvement over the egregious video that the taxpayers' money was wasted on a couple of years ago. If we have to have a video at least this one doesn't mislead like the previous video but states only the fact that condoms MAY reduce STDs and pregnancy.
"Having sex with a headless person is pathognomonic of a serious emotional disturbance, one we should not be encouraging in our students."
Isn't this a bigoted statement, doctor? Attraction to headless bodies has been common since the French revolution. There is no scientific, peer-reviewed studies showing that this is an illness. THEY'RE NOT SICK. They're just like everyone else except they don't like heads.
"While I agree with Jim that it's probably worthless"
Here is another example of the well known tactic of repeating a lie and hoping it will become true (or at least believed) through repetition. These lies do not change the facts.
Jim never said it was "worthless." Anon is the one who keeps saying that.
Jim has repeatedly and publicly stated the video is a good start that needs more information added so it can increase MCPS's sexually active teens success at preventing unplanned pregnancy from the typical usage rate of 85% to 98% with correct and consistent usage.
"Kennedy said that while he would like to see a few changes to the video, he does not plan to stand in the way of new curriculum, as CRC and PFOX have done in the past. If his opinion is in the minority, he will accept the panel’s recommendation, he said.
‘‘The point is, we can discuss these things and come to an agreement that satisfies all these viewpoints well enough,” Kennedy said. ‘‘Not everybody is going to get everything we want. What I want to see is we follow a process of talking to each other like grown-ups.”
Kennedy said he plans to suggest adding instructions that were not included in the new video, such as to be sure to throw away a condom that is unrolled inside out.
‘‘The point is to give students enough information so they can get the 98 percent effectiveness rate,” he said. ‘‘The question is does this video give students enough information to get that 98 percent effectiveness rate? I don’t think it does.”"
http://www.gazette.net/stories/090606/montcou181650_31950.shtml
Christine
Christine
Are there any studies showing that a demonstration video does anything at all to change the rate of effectiveness? I doubt it.
Jim said that the result of the new video would probably be the same as the result without a video, as it was when he was young.
I watched the video. Nothing was conveyed but the moving pictures that could not have been simply related orally- and in classes seperated by gender. Really, you don't need a dramatic reenactment of someone throwing trash away. Kids will figure it out.
"If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days."
quote from a CAC member
"Anonymous said...
Christine
Are there any studies showing that a demonstration video does anything at all to change the rate of effectiveness?"
Yes. There are many studies that compare various sex education curricula and teaching methods. One place to find some is The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/works). There are many other organizations that report on these types of studies as well.
Christine
Checked out your website, Silly. Didn't see any studies. I did see a PDF of a pamphlet, stating that there were studies but being a little cagey about the results or how to define effectiveness. I saw more discussion about how to encourage teens not to have sex rather than use contraception.
In any case, there was no mention of demonstration videos, which was my question. Any studies on these type of dubious videos.
no there is no studies there is never a study for most of what TTF says there are no facts at teach the facts. just propaganda. so do not bother to ask.
I bet you could take this Anon to any science library and he would condemn it all as propaganda.
Beyer if you have some facts you would like to present feel free. but all you seem to do is say that they exsist and are being keeped safe. bull put up or shut up.
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
I bet you could take this Anon to any science library and he would condemn it all as propaganda.
Post a Comment
<< Home