The study is the first to draw a direct link between sexual content on TV and the likelihood that teens who watch it will become parents. Researchers examined survey data from about 2,000 teens. They plucked out 23 popular shows and asked how much teens watched each. They coded the replies to established indicators of sexual content for each show ”” everything from nudge-nudge jokes on network sitcoms to full-blown intercourse on steamy cable dramas.
What they found: By age 16, teens who watched a lot of sexually charged TV were more than twice as likely to be pregnant or father an out-of-wedlock baby as teens who watched very little: 12% vs. 5%. The gap holds steady through age 20. Researchers controlled for parents’ race, income and education and teens’ total TV time.
Previous studies have linked sex on TV to earlier initiation of sex; this is the first to link TV sex to pregnancy.
“I don’t find it surprising,” says Jane Brown, who studies media and adolescent health at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill….
I find that TV and much of the media talks out of both sides of its collective mouth. When it coms to advertising, or causes which the media favors, then visual media is very persuave and effective in modifying the behavior of the watcher.
If on the other hand it has a bad effect or promotes something that others object to, then they argue that it has no effect and that people are free to accept or reject the message.
I DO ;love3 the epiphjanies that the Boomers and thisdescendents have. The Epiphanies of the Obvious! Oy Vey! Do you remember when they decided, after extensive research, that men and women are different? Larry
Well. So much for my ability to use a keyb8*ln. Lap;y
I would imagine that a parent who was lax enough to allow their teen to watch Sluts in The City would be more likely to be the sort of parent to go along with the “all teens are having sex, they are helpless to resist those urges. ” bunk preached at us by the likes of Planned Parenthood.
Therefore they are probably rather lax about their child’s sexual behavior as long as they believe the proper contraceptive is being used.
Besides what about the dears’ privacy. You can’t interfere with their own personal growth and exploration, can you?
Heck yes you can.
Desensitization. I have visited homes where the parents and the children sit and watch together Desperate Housewives, et al without the blink of an eye, and this in “conservative” households. This is a succeeding generational phenomenon beginning with the babyboomers. That might be a little less than generous, but we might look at the incidence of relaxed sexual mores with the advent of the pill. With that fueling the new freedom from fear of pregnancy and with that the liberation of women to at long last enjoy sex exploring the depth of their pent up sexuality, the novelty of frank and open communication regarding sex is a good thing, no? Prevailing attitudes at the time might have been dutiful Christian women do not enjoy sex and the less said about the subject would be just fine. But with all that consequential open communication the mysteries of the bedchamber may have just been better left to the bumbling efforts of unaccomplished yet poignantly innocent lovers who discover over time secrets revealed too soon in the Kama Sutra or other exotic and “adult” literature. Perhaps that erotic box is one better left unopened even for adults. I really don’t know what sexual freedom means in the Christian context but would challenge anyone to put boundaries without meddling on the expression of it. Peculiar isn’t it how the Bible is silent, except in the case of adultery and homosexuality, on the details of sexual behavior within a committed relationship. However one thing is certain, the gnostic idea that the body and its functions, even its sexual function, is a hindrance to full expression of the spiritual life, therefore “un-spiritual”, should be soundly pilloried by our conservative and orthodox standard bearers as heretical. We just need a return to, or discovery of, a sense of modest propriety yet not the negation of, the wonder of mature, loving, Christian sexuality. My two cents. (By the way, the reference to the pill is not to lay at the feet of women complete responsibility for the adolescent obsession with sex better left to the unfettered pagan excesses of male biological imperatives. The sexual activity in many men, and in this day and age, boys, borders on, if not is, criminal from a simply sociological point of view. From a Christian point of view, Jesus is not even part of the equation.)
Yours,
Timothy