Why Tho?: My Starbucks put up a filthy sex display!

[petrea_mitchell]

Actual headline: Why Tho? Starbucks Pride display leads to a complicated conversation with a 7-year-old

Dear Lizzy,

I’ve loved Starbucks for years but today I was bothered to the point of not wanting to patronize the company anymore if this is indeed something that will become a new norm. I don’t mean to sound like a “Karen” here... but rather a mom who is looking to protect childhood innocence.

By the register were three cups with a different flag in each one. One labeled “bisexual” one labeled “gay” and one labeled “lesbian.” (For the record, heterosexual would have been nice to include if it provokes a conversation with a child who doesn’t know about this topic.) Flags are one thing...it’s just a pretty flag but this is just too much.

[photo of display provided in original article]

I myself am politically middle of the road/socially aware/supportive of all genders and sexual preferences and believe people can do what they want as long as they’re not hurting others.

I’m equally dedicated to preserving childhood. I have a 7-year-old son who hasn’t even asked what sex is nor does he know anything about preferences because at 7 it’s too early to be discussing sexuality. All he cares about is Spider-Man and dinosaurs.

I was really disappointed and honestly disgusted to see anything with a sexual reference by the register where he can read it and then ask questions that are not age-appropriate.

My point here is that when we go into a coffee shop to get a drink, I’d like to not have to get into talks about sexuality with my 7-year-old. It’s wrong and I’ve asked the company not to display anything with sexual references in view and to be sensitive to what children read standing there.

What do you think I should have done?

Concerned Mom

Dear Concerned Mom,

Before I get into my answer, I need to address a language issue here. You use the phrase “sexual preference” but as I write about this, I will say “sexual orientation” because sexuality isn’t a preference or a choice a person makes, but part of who a person is.

I have been thinking about your question for a couple of weeks and puzzling over how best to answer it. I talked it over with several people and reached out to Starbucks for comment twice but they never got back to me. The company has, however, very vocally supported Pride for decades.

Then, today, I had a conversation with Dr. Craigan Usher, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, which gave me some great insight into your experience.

When you go to Starbucks, he said, you are expecting a certain familiar experience. The coffee, the aesthetic of the store, the menu will all be similar.

“It feels like home away from home, no matter where you travel,” Usher said. “It’s a little bit like the McDonald’s of coffee in that way.”

But even at McDonald’s, he noted, that happy, predictable place, sometimes you get a Happy Meal with a toy for a movie that your family will not be seeing for whatever reason. Maybe it’s too violent or too mature for your kid. And yet, because of that toy, you are forced into a conversation with a kid you weren’t expecting to have that day.

You were not ready for the conversation at Starbucks, but, said Usher, “The best learning is emergent – it emerges from a child’s interest. So maybe we could think about this as an opportunity.”

I agree with him on this and I think this is both an opportunity for your son to learn and for you to reframe how you are thinking about sexuality.

Your son has been learning about sexual orientation since the moment he opened his eyes on Planet Earth, if not before.

Do you have a male partner? He noticed. He’s seen messages about adult partnership everywhere – think about the boys and girls or cars, umbrellas and lions who kiss, get married and even have babies in children’s TV shows and movies. When he sees this, do you explain to him how sex between a man and a woman (or a car and a car) works? I imagine you don’t.

Sometimes we pretend that “heterosexual” isn’t a sexual orientation when in fact it very much is. So if your son reads a sign that says “bisexual” or “gay” or “lesbian” and asks you what it means, you can tell him honestly, without mentioning sex acts. You can say, “a bisexual person is someone who is attracted to both men and women,” for example.

The Oregon health education standard for first graders (which I am assuming your son is) includes this: “Describe different kinds of family structures.”

That is all you are doing here. No need to overthink it.

This is also a chance to teach your son that he doesn’t need to feel shame about who he is or who he’s attracted to, whatever that turns out to be.

“There is something really cool about people being able to be open to who they’re attracted to,” Usher said, “And that used to not be the case.”

While 7 seems young, kids often have questions or are exposed to mature subjects before parents are ready to address them. The last thing you want is to send him the message that he can’t discuss complicated topics or things related to sex with you.

This experience was uncomfortable for you. But growth is frequently uncomfortable. And now you have a chance to open up new avenues of communication and respect with your son that you will want as he gets older and is exposed to more and more things beyond your control.

Good luck!

Lizzy

Comments

[petrea_mitchell]

A couple years ago in the AAM comments, someone who'd been raised in an evangelical household explained that they'd been brought up to reflexively think of the mechanics of gay sex whenever sexual orientation is mentioned. That has helped me understand a whole lot of things, from the current assertion by the US right that mentioning gayness etc. == "grooming", to this letter.

[minoanmiss]

I was also raised in an evangelical household and taught the same association. This letter reminded me of that in specific and of associations in general.

Are you in fanfic fandom? Over there we're dealing with the anti-shippers, aka antis, who profess to believe that certain topics shouldn't be written about at all, even if properly tagged. I've noticed that in discussions many of them have trained themselves to associate "don't censor" with "I am a pedophile IRL who loves reading underage fic" At least those are the accusations they repeat over, and over, and over, and over, whenever the topic of censoring fic comes up. They seem to view it as a necessary logical conclusion: if someone opposes censorship they must be defending pedophilia. It's interesting how thoroughly they've trained themselves to make that completely illogical conclusion.

But then (to circle back) it was interesting to see how the evangelical adults in my life talked about queer people solely as having "disgusting" sex, having convinced themselves of that (weird as fuck) association. I had to do research (for amusement, picture little me reading archived newspapers) to learn that gay men were in the news because of the AIDS crisis, etc. The evangelicals around me never talked about queer people as *people*, only as sodomites.

[jadelennox]

This is a thing I have to keep relearning every time I read about it. My natural reaction is "why are all the homophobes such filthy weirdos that they read Heather has two mommies or It's Perfectly Normal and think about the mechanics of sex?" And the homophobes think "why are all the alphabets such filthy weirdos they want to teach toddlers about the mechanics of sex?"

[tamsin]

Wow. LW, you should be ashamed of yourself. Also please stop pretending that you are "supportive of all genders and sexual preferences". If you're going to act like a homophobe, at least be honest about it.

And a radical idea: if you have to explain what gay or bisexual means to a child and don't want to mention sex, just talk about love instead.

[julian]

Good answer, basically.

All you really have to do, LW, is say that a gay person is someone who loves other men. That sort of thing.

Now, mind you, that does open the possibility up for your kid of that possibility existing, but you don't have to talk about details or, indeed, think about whether your *kid* might be interested in the details. Vague it up.

And if vagueing it up worries you, then you're more concerned about this than you present yourself as. Which is fine. But stop pretending.

[fox]

my kid, when he was about 3, on our way home from a play date with some neighbors who had a 5yo boy and a 1yo girl: Where's their mom?
me: Oh - those kids have two dads.
my kid: Huh.
me: Yeah, some kids have two dads, and some have two moms, and some have one of each, like you do, or just one or the other, or something else. There are lots of kinds of families.
my kid: Can I have a snack?

Childhood entirely preserved.

[cereta]

Seriously. And odds are pretty good that by 7, the kid has seen a same sex couple in some situation.

Kids accept what they experience as "normal." If you don't tell them two men or two women loving each other is abnormal, they won't see it that way, and won't ask awkward questions.

[tielan]

This is the kind of conversation I've heard about from several friends who are parents. Kid asks a question about 'what it means', parent puts it into a broader perspective, kid is all "oh okay, [insert topic of greater importance to child such as toys, food, or friends]". Seems easy enough (says the non-parent).

[jadelennox]

also, unless the 7 year old is homeschooled or in a particular kind of religious school, the kid already knows multiple kids with gay parents, also gay characters on TV. Seven is not that young!

[xenacryst]

The real question here is whether 7 is too young for a vente double latte americano mochaccino.

[dine]

one is *never* too young to begin caffeinating!

[melannen]

7 is definitely too young to expose to Starbucks! What if the barista's wearing a union button? You can't explain the whole history of capitalism to a seven year old!

[jadelennox]

cups on the counter with flags of Marx, Engels, Emma Goldman.

[beable]

Yes, but Starbucks sells puppichinos which are totally suitable for human children (assuming no allergies, diabetes, hypoglycemia or other food issues) too.

I'm not even sure who would be more excited by a puppichino: a 7 year old human or a 7 year old dog. It would be very close.

[p_cocincinus]

My 8 year old would be very excited by a puppichino, but she usually gets hot chocolate or a strawberry creme frappuchino at Starbucks.

[minoanmiss]

Dear LW,

entertainingly my parents (whose parenting I am generally disappointed in) would agree with you but did better than you. Because while they'd also associate LGBT mentions with sex acts (and they and you should know better, FFS) they gave me an age appropriate book on human sexuality and reproduction when I was 3, because children ask questions and aren't too young for appropriate answers.

Also, admit your homophobia so you can start working on it. It'll be good for you, I promise, as well as everyone who has to deal with you.

[dine]

that's a decent answer - but now I'm wondering just how much detail LW goes into talking with their 7-year-old about heterosexual sex. I mean, if they're fine with discussing sexual practices between a man and woman, what's the big deal with talking about male/male or female/female sexual practices? and if they talk about feelings more than the physical, where's the issue with doing the same with other relationships.

basically, it seems LW is a huge phobe, while trying to pretend not to be

[ysobel]

basically, it seems LW is a huge phobe, while trying to pretend not to be

Yup.

The "why not heterosexuality" thing is basically "all lives matter", and there is no actual non-*phobic reason why knowing about lesbians (and gays and bisexuals) is inappropriate, at any age. You don't need to read Chuck Tingle at them! You can phrase it in really basic PG terms! *flail*

(not flailing at you, ofc.)

[laurajv]

oddly, more than a few of Dr Tingle's works are fully appropriate for children, as long as those children will not be given nightmares by concepts such as Void Crabs

[katiedid717]

What really gets me is how the LW keepts referring to it as "a sexual display" containing "sexual references" - when I read the words "sexual display references," I definitely did NOT picture three pride flags with words on them! I would consider some of the mannequins in the window at Victoria's Secret a sexual display, but not this.

(revised because I was thrown off by the title of the entry - oops)

[torachan]

Yeah, I went to the website thinking maybe the cups had some sort of pictures on them or something and it's literally just normal starbucks cups with the words gay, bisexual, and lesbian written on them with flags poking out. That's what this woman is getting so worked up about!?

[katiedid717]

I know, right?! Like lady, I think there are bigger issues than this. Cool your jets.

[laurajv]

i'm personally shocked that this person thinks 7 is too young to discuss human sexuality with.

i mean, i run into people like this every now and then, but i'm shocked every time. it seems deeply wrongheaded.

[resonant]

I had the same thought. I guarantee that a kid who's 7 is not too young to notice, think about, and wonder about sexuality. Apparently he's also old enough to observe that these are things that May Not Be Discussed in his family.

[laurajv]

I feel like at some point I should stop being shocked at these people, but they're real busy being shocked by flags or something constantly so maybe it's just the human condition

[cimorene]

One of my most vivid memories from early childhood was being in line with the other kids in summer camp, 1990, so everybody was 6-8 years old, and a lot of whispering going up and down the line of arguments concerning whether everybody knew what "sex" was. The ones who didn't were enlightened in first-grade vocabulary quickly by some of the other kids who did.

[laurajv]

see, exactly! I don't want my kid to learn about sex from other kids! I want them to have extremely boring age-appropriate knowledge of it from me so that when other kids try to explain it badly they can roll their eyes in a superior fashion about it!

[cimorene]

Yeah, I definitely had age-appropriate, beautifully-illustrated books that explained it well before seven. One was from the 60s and had previously belonged to my dad and explained flower, chicken, dog, and human reproduction with simplified cut paper art of sperms and eggs and so on. The other one I think rhymed and taught me the word "oviparous" when I was four, and had one page with a beautiful watercolor of an octopus - that was my favorite page.

[sciatrix]

When I was twenty, I left a book on coming to terms with your teenage LGBTQness I was reviewing for college lying around the house without really thinking about much beyond, maybe, "hell maybe someone besides me will read this and catch a tiny bit of empathy? probably not but you never know." My mother found it and screamed at me that I was going to "confuse" my nine-year-old sister.

At one point she yelled at me that she'd intended to teach Sister about sexuality "when she was older," and I pointed out that the sum total of my formal sex ed was some worksheet tests out of my health class book and one deeply creepy abstinence-only pan-Jesus workshop she dragged me to, and that she had said literally nothing about the topic ever when I had been a teenager.

I am not remotely shocked by this lady or her beliefs. Anyway, my sister's bi now, but I'm going to assume that was probably unrelated.

[lethe1]

Anyway, my sister's bi now, but I'm going to assume that was probably unrelated.

No, no. Must have been because of the book that you had left lying around!

[likeaduck]

Nah you definitely converted her. Take your toaster.

[ashbet]

It drives me nuts that so many people will view the EXACT SAME THING (holding hands, getting married, etc.) as “BLATANTLY SEXUAL” if it’s queer people doing it, but “normal and healthy” if done by straight people.

[lilysea]

Yes!

If it's okay for kids watching a tv show or film to see a man and a woman holding hands, or having a G rated kiss

then its okay for kids watching a tv show or film to see all of the above if the couple are a man and a man or a woman and a woman

[azurelunatic]

Gosh, when I discussed the topic with my 4 year old nephew, I said that some boys date boys, some boys date girls, some boys could date a boy or a girl, some girls could date a girl or a boy, and some girls date girls. And that dating is being friends and seeing movies and hanging out but also kissing. And that only grown-ups date grown-ups, because the topic came up because he said he wanted to date his mom's boyfriend.

[green_grrl]

This. I was shocked that Lizzy faffed about for WEEKS trying to find an answer. I was barely into the question before I was thinking, “Duh. ‘Some boys like girls, some boys like boys. Some girls like boys, some girls like girls. Some people like boys and girls. Sometimes people realize they aren’t a boy, or a girl, or either one, after all.’” It’s not rocket science. Or an NC17 movie.

[sathari]

That is a perfect answer. Ding ding ding we have a winner.

[mommy]

I was expecting the lewd corporate Pride display to at least be something salacious like a poster of two people of the same gender hugging. Instead it was just three cups with flags in them. This feels like an incredibly bland thing to go all "but think of the children!" over.

[ethelmay]

I am pretty sure I was no more than seven, and quite possibly two or even three years younger (this would be somewhere in the late 1960s, anyway), when I asked my mother why two men or two women couldn't get married. I am fairly sure I was just piecing together patterns about how people work, what it meant to be "married," etc., in an entirely age-appropriate way that didn't happen to be related to sexuality (though that's not why it was age-appropriate, if you see what I mean). She wasn't fazed by the question at all. (She may have given me a GLBT-erasing answer about the potential for having babies, but she didn't say anything openly hateful, and we did have much more nuanced conversations about sexual orientation later on.)

[shirou]

I agree with the comments above AND ALSO how did LW get through seven years of parenting without learning to deflect questions? By the time my eldest was seven, I had mastered the art of deflecting questions I didn't have time to answer RIGHT NOW while I am trying to cook dinner or whatever. It's deeply important to have serious, age-appropriate conversations with your children, but you cannot do that with every offhand question. You'd never do anything else.

[syderia]

The answer is pretty good, but also, at no point in the letter does it say that the kid actually asked about the display.
To me, it reads like the LW had their freakout about "OMG, my kid can see this and start asking questions I don't want to answer" but not necessarily that the kid even paid attention to the display.

[lethe1]

While 7 seems young, kids often have questions or are exposed to mature subjects before parents are ready to address them.

I like how Lizzy turns LW's argument on its head. It's not her 7-year-old son who isn't ready to hear/read about sexuality, it's LW herself who isn't ready to talk about it. Also yes, she is a gigantic phobe.

[purlewe]

at 3 yrs old one of my nieces was VERY SPECIFIC about asking me about my wife. (I didn't use that term bc I knew my sister refused to come to my wedding and I didn't want a ruckus) it was like 7am and niece kept saying "when you go home you must drop off Aunt Sue at her home." and I just kept saying cheerfully "Nope! we live in the same house" and this went on for a few minutes with the same phrasing until she said. "You live in the same house?" and I said yes. No need to even explain we were married. We just lived in the same house. I was worried my sister would be angry that I said this but I felt like it was an age appropriate thing to say and also answered the question WITHOUT saying I was in love or married to a lady. a least a year later my sister came to me and apologized for not coming to the wedding. Said she had "searched her heart and decided to tell her kids that love was love" and all. And surprise.. another one of her kids has come out in the last year or so.

So LW, it is not time to sit with your thoughts and feelings and make a decision. Right now you "claim" being ok with things that you are clearly not ok with. If you really want to be OK with them then you need to deal with that fear. and get over it. for your kid's sake.

[liv]

I agree this LW sounds like someone who's not admitting to herself that she's in fact homophobic. But as a bi person myself I've often struggled with young children's questions about Pride (flags, parades, symbols etc) specifically. I have no problem telling a child about how different combinations of genders can form loving relationships. But why do they need a special symbol or event? I am really reluctant to be the first person who tells a child about homophobia. In order to understand what Pride stuff is, it's necessary to mention widespread social prejudice against same-sex couples, and therefore raise the idea that being gay / LGBTQ+ is something that might be thought of as negative.