I guess not everyone's a fan of new media?Amanda Hess, author for the New York Times, just released an article discussing what seems to be her grievances with Sex-Ed vloggers on Youtube. In her article, "The Sex-Ed Queens of YouTube Don’t Need a Ph.D." Hesscriticizes successful content creators like Hannah Witton, Arielle Scarcella, Shan Boodram, and Laci Green for their supposed lack of education.

"...modern sex-ed stars make an asset of their amateurism. [Thier] lack of credentials is part of [thier] message."The author also implies that these vloggers rely heavily on their looks to reach success."It’s notable that there is something not entirely real about these online outlets, either.

Watching Ms. Green’s videos or scrolling through Ms. Kelly’s coolly glamorous Instagram feed can feel less like talking to a sister or a friend than marveling at a dazzling sex-ed cyborg."


Within hours, most of the stars mentioned had responded. Arielle Scarcella called out Amanda for not mentioning Laci and Shan's degrees.

Shan also noticed this and accused Hess of purposely being dishonest.

Laci fights (and writes) back

Yesterday, Laci released an official response to Hess's article.

The 26-year-old Youtuber criticizes Hess for her judgemental tone and biased perspective.

Laci also accuses the author of sexism. "The most compelling thing about our work is…our youth? Women are constantly told that as we get older, we become useless to society. Our youth and beauty will wither, our vaginas will dry up, and our careers will suffer. Good thing the New York Times is here to remind women on the internet of the dismal future that lay ahead."


Amanda Hess has not issued an apology for the article or her misinformation.

(And besides her one reply to Laci, she has yet to address the controversy.)

I think it's safe to say that just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it's worthless. Youtubers are paving their own paths and breaking glass ceiling. What's so wrong with that? I think Arielle put it best: