King’s Courier

In May 2008, the number one song on the Billboard Top 40 may not have been a song after all. The “song” in question is the Chris Brown single “Forever,” which in actuality, is an extended version of a jingle for Winterfresh Doublemint gum. The production of the single was, of course, also funded by Winterfresh. The problem with the song is not the music itself. Without the chorus, it seems like any other song Chris Brown would release. However, the precedent this single has set is slowly taking music to another level of commercialization. Imagine one day that going through someone’s iPod starts to look like a shopping list. Instead of remembering songs because of their artists, the only thing worth remembering will be jingles, and in turn, brand names. Music may be hijacked by corporations. Some will say that the mixing of pop music and commercialization is nothing new, and nothing important, especially if it’s just pop music. But, in a time where album sales are dipping across the board, all artists will be struggling to make enough money to survive. The worst case scenario is that one day; it will not just be the Chris Browns and Ne-Yos of the music world giving into this marketing strategy, but indie bands and alternative musicians. We may never see Yo-Yo Ma making a song for Coca-Cola, but it could get dangerously close. Even worse, behind all this marketing is a sinister corporate mentality. According to the Wall Street Journal, Wrigley chose Chris Brown for the ad because the company’s research found that African-Americans consume more Wrigley’s gum over other types of gum. Just as with McDonald’s “urban” appeal, Wrigley is using stereotypes to target a demographic market. If the fact that the song is actually an ad jingle is a surprise to anyone, that’s exactly what corporate executives wanted. Steve Stoute, a former Interscope Records senior executive wanted audiences to connect the jingle and the song, if only in their minds. Stoute even said he hoped “by the time the new jingle came out, it was already seeded properly within popular culture.” Ultimately, if one enjoys the song, does it matter that something is being sold by it? The answer should be “yes.” Our brains are already bombarded by advertising almost every moment of the day, and any more advertising, conscious or subconscious, is just too much. On the plus side, now people can not only chew gum, but they can also listen to it and watch it on MTV, all at the same time.

by: Cori Krigesun

No matter what the school curriculum involves, it is a given that parents have a right to control their child’s education. Even though there is state mandated education in the United States, it is up to a child’s parents to decide how they are to be educated, and if that means excluding or including them from any lesson, that is acceptable. Sexual education should be no differet. The benefits of sexual education in schools can be seen worldwide, and for decades it has been a staple of health classes in the United States, in some form or another. However, students have always had the privilege of being exempted from the course if their parents see it necessary. This is a policy that cannot change, lest the format of schooling starts to impede on people’s civil liberties. This does not imply that sexual education is ineffective, unnecessary or immoral. What this is based on the idea of a parent’s determination of the education they want their child to receive. If parents want to tackle this topic on their own, so be it. Pragmatically, making sexual education mandatory will make very few differences in regard to problems such as teenage pregnancy. The numbers of students who opt out is relatively miniscule compared to those who take part in the program. If, like the United Kingdom, the United States adopts a compulsory sexual education program, it will add only more constraints and restrictions in a public school system where administration and teachers have little room to breathe. Pragmatically, time spent implementing this program would hurt all parties involved. Julie Bentley, executive of the FPA, formerly known as the Family Planning Association was quoted in The Guardian as being pleased regarding mandatory sexual education in the United Kingdom, yet she only addressed the positive benefits of sexual education. The issue over the effectiveness of sexual education is largely a moot point. Sexual education has been proven to help battle problems such as teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, yet it is still the duty of the public school system to allow parents to, within reasonable limits, educate their children within their own moral standards. There are other, more effective solutions that exist. Other faces of the program used in Britain involve an earlier introduction to the basics of health, and a more thorough teaching of the matter to students. The solutions exist in stronger sexual education, not forcing it upon others. Just because a child is attending public school does not mean that no accommodations can be made for that child, especially when it is a touchy subject such as sexual education. Before the United States attempts to force this program on all students, it should work on improving it.

Sex, sex, and sex. This is on the minds of thousands of teenagers around the world who are engaging in premarital sex, not thinking of the many consequences that come with it. Teens are at dangerous risk of contracting an STD, girls are always at risk of becoming pregnant, and teens can get hurt emotionally, physically, and socially. As if that weren’t enough, teens who engage in unprotected sex may have their morals, beliefs, and values shattered and many regret their first time, although theyfind it harder to say no the next time.Fortunately, school districts have implemented education programs to teach teens about sex, STDs, contraception, and abstinence. These programs must be mandatory in order to maintain a safe environment for teens and protect them from the damaging results of premarital sex.U.S. school districts developed two programs to solve the problem of sex among teens. “Abstinence-only” programs teach teens that they should wait to have sex until marriage, or at least until they are older. Teens are taught that abstinence is the only way to approach sex, and the program gives several descriptions on the harmful results of sex.Thousands of schools across the nation are using abstinence-only as the main message to teach to their students. Studies have shown that this program has been effective in limiting sexual activity and encouraging teens to take vows of chastity until high school or marriage.By explaining to teens the dangerous effects of sex, teens are less susceptible to the negative aspects sex brings.“Abstinence-plus” programs also discourage sex, but suggest the use of contraception by teens who choose to be sexually active anyway. Teens are informed with accurate information on contraception, abortion, STDS, and HIV/AIDS, as opposed to the misinformation they often get from their friends.They also learn the value of the responsibility, attitudes, and relationships that sex creates. Meanwhile, parents are adding their input on the sex-ed programs taught at their child’s school. According to a study that was published in The Real Truth About Teens & Sex, 67 percent of parents believe “abstinence-plus” programs must be taught in schools, while only 30 percent favor “abstinence-only” programs. The sex curriculum has shown to be effective as one-third of U.S. schools discuss how to obtain or use various birth control options. Teen contraceptive displayed improvement when a study showed that 83 percent of teens since 2002 have used contraceptives. Parents and U.S. school districts feel that teens are lacking in their knowledge of sex or that the information they do know is inaccurate.The damaging ramifications of premarital sex among teens compromises one of society’s most personal, complex, and frequently ignored problems. By taking the initiative to teach their students about sex, schools are improving the lives of teens and informing them of the harmful consequences that sex brings.