Gov't wants to regulate junk food ads aimed at kids ... maybe they should ban parents from buying it first

So, the government wants food companies and restaurants to cut back on advertising unhealthy foods to children. Because it’s not the parents’ fault that kids eat junk at mealtime instead of healthy food. No, with restaurants and food companies bombarding kids with ads for junk foods and sodas, it’s clearly not on a parent to know how to moderate a childs’ diet by limiting the amount of said advertised junk food a child eats. I’m assuming this is a government effort to tackle the nationwide, childhood obesity epidemic. Part of that effort is to blame the people providing those foods by targeting the adolescent demographic through advertising. That’s like saying I can eat McDonald’s every day for every meal, gain a lot of weight and then blame the restaurant for making it so enticing through advertising that I had no choice but to buy it and eat it – every day.

Bull and crap.

This is not the fault of advertising. If it wasn't working, they wouldn't do it. Parents know that sodas, gummy snacks, cookies and processed and fast foods are not the healthiest choices but are too busy or too tired to think about what they are feeding their kids. At the end of an 8-hour work-day, it’s easier to whip-up, pick-up or leave it up to the kids to dictate their meals. So, if a kid is eating it, a parent is buying it. How can you blame advertisements? Advertisements are purchase suggestions, not ultimatums. Parents clearly have a choice in whether to make that purchase or not. If children are making the food buying decisions in a household, then maybe the dynamics of that family need to be re-evaluated. Just because my daughter asks me for soda or cereal loaded with sugar, doesn’t mean I’m going to buy it for her. But I’ve been known to nuke a boxed meal for her because I was too tired after work and I've let her down a half-a-box of Oreos because it was easier than arguing with her - not because she saw an ad on TV and made me do it. I am the parent and I have the authority to say NO.

But, looking at the new proposal, companies will be urged to only market foods to children ages 2 through 17 that are low in fats, sugars and sodium, and contain specific, healthy ingredients. Under new guidelines that would be phased in over the next five years, foods that “have any trans-fat, more than one gram of saturated fat, 13 grams of added sugars and 210 mg of sodium” would not be eligible for marketing. This is to “support, rather than undermine parents’ efforts to get their children to eat more healthfully.” So, basically, we’ll be looking at ads for fuits and veggies, grains and other healthy foods that parents are already not buying their kids. And no matter how you package broccoli, kids are still probably not going to want to eat it.

This isn’t the first time that the government has intervened. Public health advocates argued that the food industry’s self regulation is not enough, and pushed for the government to set guidelines - which they did. Back in 2009, Congress directed the FTC and ADFDA to develop recommendations. The guidelines were broad, but the food industry reduced the number of TV ads aimed at children over recent years and many of those companies reformulated foods to reduce unhealthy ingredients. I’d say that’s a win.

Although these newer guidelines are voluntary, I’m sure we’ll see a slight change in what is being advertised as far as food is concerned. But, again, we can’t blame a company or restaurant for what and how much parents are feeding their children. It’s every person’s responsibility to know and understand that too much unhealthy deliciousness is going to have an adverse affect on their child’s health. Our kids are fat because we are making them that way by allowing them to eat what they want and be lazy. When parents care enough to encourage good eating habits by making healthy food choices for their kids as a lifestyle, discouraging WoW and other video game marathons by getting them involved in some form of physical activity, and inter-acting with their kids on a daily, we will see an increase in the wellness of children everywhere. Placing the blame on companies and restaurants is a cop-out. Place the blame where it belongs: with the parents. Because once you start regulating everything, you might as move to China. You can’t do anything there, not even time travel

Trending: Full frontal ‘dude-ity’

What’s up with all the gratuitous man-junk shots in movies and new cable series?

It’s like Hollywood ran out of ‘wow factor’ ideas and turned to the male appendage for shock value, comic relief and an attempt to hook female viewers with sex-appeal. Because, let’s face it, nothing says ‘sex appeal’ more, to chicks, than a full-on shot of a penis. Honestly, to me, that’s probably the least attractive part of the male anatomy to see on-screen, even if my new guilty pleasure is the Showtime reality series, Gigolos, which documents the sex-ploits of four (or five) male prostitutes in Vegas.

The last two movies I saw, Hall Pass and Your Highness, featured an element of surprise in the form of two schlong shots I didn’t see coming. Two of my favorite new cable series, Spartacus and Game of Thrones, throw around the full monty when it has nothing to do with what’s going on in the story; it’s as if the junk shot was a standard wardrobe change. I’m not sure if actors are stunting their rise to fame through a creative risk – the risk that their choice in roles in a particular movie or series could make or break their career. If the series is a success, it’s considered edgy; if it’s a flop, well, it’s the only thing people will remember. Look what happened to actor Simon Rex – oh, wait, that was gay porn – my bad. But his choices did affect the roles available to him in future, forgettable films, like … well, I forgot. But I digress …

It’s like when Tinsel-town discovered naked chicks drew box office bucks and actresses saw a way to jumpstart a stagnant career. As a matter of fact, nowadays, it’s easier to keep track of the actresses that don’t do nude scenes than the ones that do. But a penis is kind of like a fart joke, it gets old after a while. Boobs never get old - ever. Because, unlike the penis, you can be assured that every set of tits that shows up in a movie or on cable, that’s not featured on a health documentary, will look great. You can’t really guarantee that about a man’s junk. It just hangs there … until it’s moved. That is truly an appendage that’s for functionality only. You can’t even dress it up.

So, being the curious gal that I am, I decided to take to the Internet and learn more about this new … element … in movie-making. What I found out was that that first, this wasn’t an all female idea as a way to stick it to the dudes for objectifying the female form and two, men have been getting naked in film for a while now – although not as often as women until more recently. Why?

According to the executive producer of a reality series on cable television, more male nudity can be viewed as less repressed and more balanced to what is shown of women. In the movie Your Highness, the director said the shot of the Minotaur’s weenis (which comes out of nowhere) was the subject of much planning and internal debate from within and outside of the studio. Lighting, size and the state of arousal were all discussed at length to produce the final filmed scene. I imagine the same can be said of all the featured and cameo appearances of a man’s junk in television or film.

In the past, the scenes were so fast and so small, it was almost as if Hollywood was testing the waters of what would be acceptable by quick flashes and faraway, you-can-almost-make-out-a-no-no-part shot. It was shocking to see a man’s jigglies flash before your eyes on-screen, and sometimes it was so fast you wondered if that really happened. But actors have been known to take it off for a movie. Richard Gere did it in American Gigolo. Bruce Willis bared a close up of his itty bitties in The Colour of Night and although Wild Things was popular for other reasons, Kevin Bacon gives the full frontal in the cult classic. In Alexander, Colin Farrell bares it all for a wedding-night sex scene. Then there’s the unnecessary, bleach your eyes, nude wrestling scene between Sasha Baron-Cohen and his rather large sidekick, in Borat. Funny, but ever so gross, the image of the fat guy’s bits bouncing on Baron-Cohen’s face is forever imprinted into my brain.

What I came to conclude after much research and a lot of thinking is that man-junk is Hollywood’s new trump card. It’s the surprise, new element to making comedies even more funny and sex scenes more realistic. In other words, the creative geniuses that make movie magic happen have run out of ideas and pulled this out of their asses. Even though I don’t really care to see a man’s no-no parts, I can’t really complain. Those gratuitous scenes are part of some of my favorite new shows on cable.

Oh. My. Gosh. Look at his junk. I mean, it's so GROSS. It looks like one of those slim jims you get at the store. I mean, it's ... so ... WEIRD looking ...

Spanking: is it child abuse or a parent’s right?

I don’t spank my daughter anymore. Actually, I stopped spanking her when she was still a toddler because, as a form of discipline, it wasn’t working. Nothing made that fact more clear than when her father gave her a choice between getting a spanking or having her television privileges revoked and she weighed-in on which would be worse by asking how many spankings she would get. She was 4-years old. From that point on, we realized the more effective disciplinary action would be to start restricting her fun stuff.

But for some parents, spankings work and who are we to tell them they may not discipline their kids as they see fit? I ask this because I recently came across an article written by a woman who was abused as a child and considered calling the police on a parent who spanked her child in a public place because she felt it was child abuse. She went on to ask, “how can we work to eradicate child abuse when it’s legal to spank?” She continued to state her case by saying spanking is assault and battery, noting that there are even a few states that have passed anti-spanking laws.

Whoa. That’s a little dramatic.

Child abuse and neglect are defined by federal and state laws. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, child abuse is any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm, or the rape, and in cases of caretaker or interfamilial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children. Whew. That was a mouthful.

Let’s go ahead and break that down:

Physical Abuse
Physical abuse is generally defined as "any non-accidental, physical injury to the child" and can include striking, kicking, burning or biting, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 38 states, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare.

Neglect:
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm. Approximately 24 states include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect. Seven states specifically define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child. In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.

Sexual Abuse/Exploitation
All States include sexual abuse in their definitions of child abuse. Some States refer in general terms to sexual abuse, while others specify various acts as sexual abuse. Sexual exploitation is an element of the definition of sexual abuse in most jurisdictions. Sexual exploitation includes allowing the child to engage in prostitution or in the production of child pornography.

Emotional Abuse
Almost all States include emotional maltreatment as part of their definitions of abuse or neglect. Approximately 32 States provide specific definitions of emotional abuse or mental injury to a child. Typical language used in these definitions is "injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of the child as evidenced by an observable or substantial change in behavior, emotional response or cognition," or as evidenced by "anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or aggressive behavior."

Parental Substance Abuse
* Parental substance abuse is an element of the definition of child abuse or neglect in some States. Circumstances that are considered abuse or neglect in some States include:
* Prenatal exposure of a child to harm due to the mother's use of an illegal drug or other substance (14 states and the District of Columbia).
* Manufacture of a controlled substance in the presence of a child or on the premises occupied by a child (10 states).
* Allowing a child to be present where the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of controlled substances are used or stored (three states).
* Selling, distributing, or giving drugs or alcohol to a child (seven states).
* Use of a controlled substance by a caregiver that impairs the caregiver's ability to adequately care for the child (seven states).

Abandonment
In general, it is considered abandonment of the child when the parent's identity or whereabouts are unknown, the child has been left by the parent in circumstances in which the child suffers serious harm or the parent has failed to maintain contact with the child or to provide reasonable support for a specified period of time.

As for anti-spanking laws, I couldn’t find one state law that prohibits a parent from spanking their children. What I did find was that some states defined what is considered abuse by whether a mark is left and how long the child sports the mark – even if it’s just a spanking. So, if you spank your child on the leg and your hand print is left longer than the state definition allows, you will be looking at a visit from child protective services if you are reported.

Most of us who are over a certain age, and even some who aren’t as old, remember getting spanked growing up. I know I do, and I can tell you that I never did the same thing twice if I got spanked for it the first time. My parents totally believed in the power of the hand on my ass to get their point across. When that didn’t work, they moved on to more effective means of discipline like taking away privileges and manual labor. It worked, I didn’t turn out too bad.

Going back to the article about the woman who wanted to report a parent for spanking a child, people should mind their own business unless they witness someone beating or mistreating a child as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the law. Let me just emphasize that spanking is not considered a beating – a beating will leave a bruise. Some might argue that corporal punishment leaves an emotional scar or mark on a child that they carry into adulthood. Well, so does name-calling on the playground. Everyone has a different parenting technique which includes how they choose to discipline their children. Some believe in spankings, while others choose to try alternative methods of discipline. Some might even start with spanking and move onto something different when that doesn’t work anymore, like me and my daughter’s dad. But whatever the method, it’s a parent’s right, not anyone else’s, to decide what works for them.

EXTRA: a study conducted last year resulted in finding that children spanked up to the age of six, are likely to perform better at school as a teenager, were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.