Donna Reed, Facebook and Sex Talk

It wasn’t all that long ago that Donna Reed was wearing pearls and pumps while cutting primroses from the garden.  I understand that there have been many changes since that day.  Many of them are good, some of them  are bad, but the world is a very different place than that of “Leave It To Beaver.”  Unfortunately, one of the good things left behind in this metamorphosis of time, is innocence. At one time, children (and adults for that matter) had the good fortune of being oblivious to many things with which they seem to be bombarded with now.  In those days, if you wanted to find pornography or an article regarding sex outside of marriage, you had to look pretty hard.  Now, all you have to do is push a button.  All too often, the innocence of a child is destroyed by a little internet curiosity.

And the effects of these changes aren’t limited to children, as my fellow blogger and author Ann Jackson knows; she recently wrote in her blog about how she was featured in the Australian version of Cosmopolitan Magazine about an internet pornography addiction.  Last time I checked, Cosmo is not a Christian publication. This is bigger than a religious problem.  This is a moral and a wisdom problem.  We have made this type of material too accessible for our own good, and many people have life lasting scars to prove it.

What does this have to do with BlogHer?  Last week, while attending a conference, I quickly checked my Facebook account. As I did, I found that BlogHer was featuring an article from their “Love and Sex” category. The article was about how to decide whether or not a person should engage in a “threesome”.

I have no opinion regarding BlogHer having a portion of their website devoted to this type of article. BlogHer doesn’t profess to have any religious affiliation, therefore, I can not expect for them to share my Christian viewpoint. As some of my dear readers pointed out, morality can not be legislated.  I can not expect the world to have my convictions.  What I do take issue with, is their decision to advertise these type of articles on Facebook.  Facebook should be a place where organizations of reputation are responsible enough to keep things at PG level.   Children and adults alike should not have to be bombarded by articles regarding sexual preference while checking a social networking site.

Another one of my blogging friends, Lady Tam from The Lady Expounds wrote this blog in response to my original post.  In it, she makes some very valid arguments.  However, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to keep BlogHer from publishing this type of article, but rather from advertising it on Facebook.

When I commented on their choice of articles featured on Facebook, this was the response:”we publish blog posts that are of interest to a wide variety of women and the number of posts about sex (of any kind) is small compared to the huge numbers of posts on other subjects.”

BlogHer is an excellent tool for us as bloggers.  As stated above, they want to appeal to every type of blogger.  This is fine.  Regardless of the comments posted on this particular Facebook thread, I still believe that the average American agrees that  this type of blog post should not be advertised to the masses, and made easily available through Facebook. As they stated themselves, the number of posts regarding this type of behavior is small.  So, why advertise them to the masses?  I’d venture to say many people are offended by having something of this type show up on their newsfeed.  It seems like poor business practice to push this type of article.

Please feel free to contact BlogHer and let them know how you feel about them using Facebook to advertise this type of article.

What do you believe about legislation of morality?  Is there a morality apart from Christianity?  Who or what determines it?

Next week:  Why People Over Forty Are In Shock.  (I’ll be answering some more of Lady Tam’s questions)


26 thoughts on “Donna Reed, Facebook and Sex Talk

  1. Thanks for this follow-up! 🙂

    “What do you believe about legislation of morality?”

    In thinking about it, the site may be in an awkward position. On the one hand, it has a lot of lady bloggers who are upset about this advertisement. On the other, the ads on FB may be automated somehow. Also, they may feel they can’t not advertise such posts without appearing censor-happy.

    I don’t think one blip on FB about such articles will scar a kid; there’s far, far worse out there. I think it *does* have the potential to start interesting conversations.

    “Is there a morality apart from Christianity? Who or what determines it?”

    These are excellent questions I plan to expand on with a new post of my own. (Also, I’m on my way to work. Will address these shortly!)

  2. Pingback: Personal Post: Of Death & Morality. « The Lady Expounds

  3. Pingback: BlogHer 2: The Bloggening. « The Lady Expounds

  4. I’m not sure that it’s fair to equate “pornography” or “extra-marital sex” with couples who make the choice to engage in a threesome. The former two are based on disrespect and dishonesty, while the latter is a legitimate choice for people to make.

    I’m also not sure why it’s ok for Blogher to have this content, but NOT ok to advertise it? The purpose of advertising is to draw in readers, and often the most effective way to draw in readers is by being provocative.

    It’s not like Facebook is now, or has ever been, some sort of safe haven for child-friendly content. If you’re worried about protecting the children, surely a better solution is to keep them off Facebook, which is dominated by inappropriate jokes, swearing, and often, opinions you might not wish shared with your children.

    Finally, I’m not sure that knowing these things exist makes people do these things. Extramarital relations have ALWAYS existed, and I’m not sure knowing or not knowing that they exist will stop or compel someone to act in that way.

    • I appreciate how much your comment made me think about my own beliefs. I think my friend John said it nicely on a different post. It’s one thing to have articles like this written, it’s another for those people to be contacting me with the articles. They have a right to write them, and I have the right to let them know that I don’t want them contacting me with such material. Thanks again for making me think!! 😉

  5. I think you have touched on something important here. Morality and mores are changing so fast, and mainly, I think, because of “media” in a larger sense, including facebook, etc., that I think many of us are beginning to rethink the internet altogether. If I had small children at home today I would probably become very protective–much more so than when my 23 year old son was growing up.

  6. Wow, good stuff.

    I think ALL THE TIME about the loss of innocence in our world, and I’m not even talking about since the 50’s. I’m talking about since the 70’s! Our world was such a different place, different values, different priorities. Yep, I sound as if I’m 80.

    There is no denying media is playing a huge part in this change. You hear about something wild and weird and want to know more? Google it.


  7. I’ll agree with others in that posting about threesomes on Facebook is not necessarily a problem. As I said before, what others do is their business, and at best, we can try to help show them the immorality.
    My problem is with BlogHer pushing out the notices. (I’ll admit here I have no idea how BlogHer delivers these notices.) If they are going to advertise materials others might find objectionable, there should be some way to block the notices, or there should be some note in the header stating that the topic covers potentially objectionable material. Yes, I realise this can lead to every note about every item needing a warning, and I don’t want that, or worse yet, censorship. A person should be responsible for what they choose to view (or not view), but there should at least be some warning about content if BlogHer is going to “shove it in your face”, so to speak.
    And Amy, don’t worry about sounding like you’re 80. I’ve seen a dramatic shift in morals from the 70s (when I was in my teens) up to today. I may feel like I’m 80 some days, but I’m in my late 40s and can still do a pretty convincing “I remember back in MY day” old fart harangue! 😀

  8. As a liberal non-Christian, perhaps I shouldn’t be opening my mouth here (but I will anyway.) 🙂

    I too am not wholly comfortable with the open discussion of various issues, and back when my ex and I used to watch TV during the evening meal, would have preferred NOT to be subjected to graphic commercials for hemorrhoid products or various disgusting digestive ailments.

    Yet, I do think more openness about sex and sexuality has been a good thing overall, even as I squirm about the Viagra commercials during family football watching time. In theory, I’m with you, that children should be allowed to be innocent, but in reality, “back in the day,” they were being molested in vast numbers by trusted family members and spiritual advisors, among others. Now they are much more likely to come forward and protest, and families are less likely to cover it up and deny it, than they were in the days of Leave It To Beaver (and Barbara Billingsley, who was herself a working mother.)

    Regardless of one’s politics, we have as President somebody who wouldn’t even have been allowed to receive emergency medical care at the nearest hospital, during that era, simply because of the color of his skin. A violent, brutal rape with serious beating – didn’t EXIST as a crime if it was your husband perpetuating it. So don’t look at the past with rose-colored glasses – there was plenty back then that was immoral, that is no longer legally or socially acceptable.

    • I’m glad you feel comfortable sharing your opinion here! I think that some things are much better now than they were during “Leave it to Beaver” days. As the survivor of an abusive marriage, I am very glad that there is a more open atmosphere for hurting people. The thing I do believe is different today than yesteryear, is that there are many more threats to our loss of innocence in today’s culture and society. For instance, in order to look at pornography in the past, one had to be of age, walk into a certain type of store, ask and clerk and purchase it. Nowadays, I can be doing a junior high research paper and use the internet with all of the appropriate blocks, and still be subjected to sexual content. I agree with many of the above comments that the internet in itself isn’t bad, but I think no one would argue that the opportunities given, whether sexual, bullying, or just a basic change in what a “friendship” or “relationship” truly is, have perhaps changed society faster than we’ve been able to respond. I’m so glad you’ve shared!

  9. Wow. This is such an excellent discussion going on here. It might take me a while to really formulate my thoughts on this — a bit more time that I can give here right now, but I have to say, I am really interested in the dialogue happening here.

    I’ve read through all the comments and I have to say that I appreciate the voices filled with respect as people have communicated here. That is huge, especially when not everyone shares the same viewpoint.

    I honestly don’t know how to articulate the answers to the questions. In fact, I don’t know that I have any answers now. I’m going to stay tuned and learn more from y’all.

  10. I would consider myself a non-Christian…or at least not a practicing one, but that doesn’t mean I’m not horrified by what kids can access through reading material and internet access. I read a Cosmo the other day and found the whole experience upsetting. No wonder college girls are trying to pay off their student loans as hookers. Why not? We have basically legitamized every sexual act in the name of pleasure. We glorify gold diggers like the Kardashian, the Bachlorette who falls in love in 20 minutes and expects a rock and a promise, we offer reality shows to 16-year old who find themselves pregnant…why not become the worst F-up in the world and get rewarded. All you have to do is realize the shackles have been taken off Casey Anthony and you know a correction may be fast approaching…and I’m not talking in the stock market.

    • Annie: Your words have cut me to the heart. You are so correct, and your voice has really inspired me for an upcoming blog post. In addition, I believe there is a direct correlation between how a country is doing financially and how a country does morally…maybe another discussion, another day?

  11. I believe the internet is neutral and I try to be a voice that uses it for good. I realize there is a differing opinion on what is good. But I use it for what I believe is good . . . encouraging and loving, teaching, motivating, etc.

    I like this good dialogue.


  12. I’m not familiar with what BlogHer does. I guess I’m not very blog savvy, nor do I access Facebook very often, even though I have a page on it, so I’ll not engage in opinions about things I know little of. But as for your other question, “Is there a morality apart from Christianity?” I have something to say as a Christian who never remembers a time when I wasn’t one. Of course there is a morality apart from Christianity. If there weren’t, you would see depravity in all the non-Christians in this world, and that just isn’t so. Plus nearly every day one reads about professing Christians who have extra-marital affairs, are bigoted, are homophobic, care little about those less fortunate than they are if those people belong to the wrong political party, and on and on. So, no, Christians don’t have a lock on morality. The problem is that so many “Christians” don’t really follow Christ at all, yet people from other faiths and no faith follow Christ’s teachings without even knowing it. They follow that path because it is the good and right way to be as a decent human being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s