“My man is satisfied, he's got no cause for complaints, but technically, I am a virgin. You know what I mean.”
– Dionne, explaining her relationship with her high school boyfriend, in the 1995 movie Clueless
According to a recent study published in the medical journal Pediatrics, teenagers who watch a lot of television with sexual content are twice as likely to engage in intercourse than those who watch few such programs. “This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities,” said Rebecca Collins, a psychologist at the RAND Corp. who headed the study.
With the average American teen watching three hours of television per day, the level of bombardment is extensive. A scientific content analysis of the 2001–2002 TV seasons, for example, discovered that sexual content appears in 64% of all television programs. Those programs with sexual content average 4.4 scenes with sexually related material per hour (sitcoms were even higher, averaging 7.7 scenes per hour). Programs viewed most frequently by teens had a much higher concentration of sexual content than other television programs.
This high-dose exposure to portrayals of sex, claims the Pediatrics article, may affect adolescents’ developing beliefs about cultural norms. Television may create the illusion that sex is more central to daily life than it truly is, thereby promoting sexual initiation as a result and altering beliefs about the likely outcome of engaging in sexual activity.
We observed substantial associations between the amount of sexual content viewed by adolescents and advances in their sexual behavior during the subsequent year. Youths who viewed 1 SD more sexual content than average behaved sexually like youths who were 9 to 17 months older but watched average amounts of sex on TV. This effect is not insubstantial. Predicted probabilities showed that watching the highest levels of sexual content effectively doubled the next-year likelihood of initiating intercourse and greatly increased the probability of advancing 1 level in noncoital activity. In other words, after adjustment for other differences between high and low viewers of sexual content, 12-year-olds who watched the highest levels of this content among youths their age appeared much like youths 2 to 3 years older who watched the lowest levels of sexual content among their peers. The magnitude of these results are such that a moderate shift in the average sexual content of adolescent TV viewing could have substantial effects on sexual behavior at the population level.
These finding help support a decade's worth of anecdotal evidence that noncoital activity, particularly oral sex, has become a "trend" among teenagers. The “technical virgin”, a person who engages in sexual touching and/or oral sex but not vaginal intercourse, has become increasingly viewed as an acceptable alternative to "sex" by many teens and pre-teens.
Family Planning Perspectives (November/December/2000) found that 40% of teens surveyed by Seventeen magazine in the fall of 1999 did not consider oral sex to be "sex," while 18% of girls surveyed by Twist magazine in the summer of 2000 said that oral sex was "something you did with your boyfriend before you are ready to have sex." A midwestern survey of 12- to 17-year-olds found that abstinence was not well defined, with answers ranging from "kissing is probably okay" to "just no intercourse."
The Monica Lewinsky scandal also confused national dialogue on the subject, when President Clinton declared that he had not perjured himself when he said he did not have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky because vaginal intercourse was not involved. Bill isn't alone. Even health educators appear to be confused about the issue. An email survey of 72 health educators found that 30% believed oral sex was “abstinent behavior.”
What is often overlooked or misunderstood by these teens is the role oral sex plays in the suffusion of sexually transmitted diseases. Although the HIV virus is rarely spread in this manner, other viral STDs (papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, and hepatitis B) are readily transmitted orally. Bacterial infections such as gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, and chancroid are also spread through oral intercourse. Recent reports by the CDC show that syphilis, which has been on the decline, is increasingly being spread through oral sex.
“Our major social problems are not the cause of our decadence,” says political columnist Cal Thomas. “They are a reflection of it.” Indeed, while parents may be quick to blame Hollywood for this deleterious affect on our children, we should recognize that it is merely symptomatic of our sex-saturated culture. Rather than advocating symbolic actions such as boycotts and letter-writing campaigns – measures that do more to salve our conscience than affect the problem – we should take practical steps to counteract the effects of television on our young people.
Other studies show that children who are intelligent, participate in religious or spiritual activities, or have strong and supportive ties with parents reduce the likelihood that teens will engage in such risky behavior. We should, therefore, be doing all we can to educate our children, build their moral foundations, and strengthen out relationships with them. We should, in other words, act like parents. And acting like a parent means monitoring what our children watch. In order for teens to understand the dangers of being a “technical virgin” they'll need more than a V-Chip, they'll need the intervention of loving, attentive parents.
It will only get worse as people are desensitized to the present decadent filth. Personally, I think television itself needs to go. You see peoples' eyes glaze over when they watch that thing... it literally sucks the thought out of their heads.
I just got out of high school, and you can talk my word for it, the next generation will be half-illiterate, and thanks in no small part to television.
sackofcatfood,
It's not the TV that has to go. TV is one of the great creations of mankind. And if TV was to go, would that mean computer monitors would have to go as well?
TV isn't the cause of the 'present decadent filth,' it is simply one of the many vehicles of delivery. The only real solution is for parents and society at large to realize their own responsibilities and the real power that each person has in shaping the future, whether it be on a nation- or world-wide scale on simply just the future of thier own child.
If people can realize their own responsibilities in the world, will become another great tool for people to move forward.
There are two major theories about the influence of television content on behavior; I'll call them the Don't Worry and the I'm Paying theories.
The Don't Worry theory says that TV content does not influence behavior. This is the perspective of the Media Left. Criticizing content because it contains sex and violence is just sill rhetoric put forth by the Up-Tight Right. Everybody who is anybody knows they are a bunch of loons, so don't worry.
The I'm Paying theory supposes that TV content does influence behavior. Content is very important, and carefully crafting content to get the behavior you want is extremely important. This is the perspective of advertisers, who spend billions to change behavior using carefully crafted content.
One of these theories is wrong. I suggest you follow the money.
As a parent, I appreciated this post tremendously and it just helped substantiate my beliefs on limiting my children's access to the television.
TV is one of the great creations of mankind.
why?
Joe, thanks for the post, very insightful reflections on what sounds to be like a pretty important study.
What I worry about for myself as a parent, for my kids now and for when they grow up, is that we as the Church have become too scared to truly engage our culture. We read something like this and decide to throw our TVs away, versus really taking the time and energy to teach our kids about right and wrong, how to critically filter media, etc.
Anyway, thanks again for the post.
Good item.
Isn't it possible that the Clinton-"that woman!" episode helps our cause? Recasting the "does oral sex count?" question in the context of ADULTERY would seem to clarify the question in a way it doesn't with a boy or girlfriend.
>The Don't Worry theory says that TV content does not influence behavior.
Then why do they pay big $$$ for TV advertising content?
While there seems to be a strong correlation between viewing sexually explicit materials and actually being sexually active, there doesn't seem to be a case made for a strong causal relationship.
Briefly, you could do a study that shows a strong correlation between Teens with sexually transmitted diseases and Teens who watch a lot of T.V. (Same results as the study, Teens who have more sex are more likely to get STD’s). But it would be ludicrous to suggest that watching TV causes STD’s.
I would like to know if, the Teens watching the T.V. have parents involved or not. Are they going to a church/synagogue that condemns the behavior or not. Would we get results that show the more parents are involved a) the less likely to watch sexually explicit programs and b) less likely to have sex? Would we get results that Teens who attend church regularly are a) less likely to watch the programs and b) less likely to have sex?
When I was in high school (not so long ago) I was part of a youth movement known as "Teen Advisers". We took vows to abstain from sex, drug use, alcohol use, and tobacco use for the entirety of our time in the organization (barring marriage--an abnormality as all members were high school students or early college students); and we would go into the school systems and council teens on the topics we had vowed to address, with few additional items tagged on (suicide, etc.).
One of the more distrubing counciling sessions members of my group were called in on was the Rockdale County fiasco in Georgia in the late 1990s. Young teenagers were watching pornographic films and then emulating the actions in large parties, at which the emulation was a kind of litmus test for inclusion in the group.
The issues addressed here by Joe are affecting ever-younger portions of the population, and I don't think that today's parents realize how vital their intervention in matters of youth sexuality really is. I am 23. I don't have kids; but as far back as eleven years ago I remember my friends beginning to engage in some of the activities Joe described--particularly when they had a high exposure to popular culture (music, movies, T.V.) or when the parents of those children had films of an adult nature around the house.
However, access is not the only precursor to that kind of behavior. Most of the kids I knew that had access to sexually explicit material seemed more likely to mimic that material; however, many kids whose parents denied them such access gained it through friends whose parents were less attentive. There is no replacement, I think, for directly addressing the spiritual side of these issues with teens. I also think that positive peer organizations like "Teen Advisers" are key to the success of abstinence efforts.
Michael,
You make a point that might address some of the viewing/behavior studies. However, not all the studies are correlational studies. Many are experimental studies. And your choice of intervening variables is a good one for the example. I may use it in class someday. Thanks.
But the point I made above about advertising and following the money, I think, casts serious question even on the correlational studies you think may have an intervening variable. Why, then, is purchasing behavior correlated with buyer choices? Surely you aren't arguing that those buyers were inclined to buy before they saw the commercials, chose TV shows that happened to have those commercials, then - and only then - bought? No, you may have forgotten the part in statistics class where a temporal relationship can strengthen the inference of causality.
But the bottom line is, among marketing research professionals are some of the best statisticians around. Pick up a copy of the Journal of Marketing Research some time and take a peek. And Coca-Cola, GM, Toyota, Dell, etc. don't spend billions on advertising chasing statistical will 'o the wisps. Believe me, Michael, they have guys in executive positions who are well aware of the limitations of correlation.
Now, if watching a 30-second commercial a few times can get you to dial Dell's 800 number when you're ready to buy a computer, what about watching hours of sexual content?
The problem, of course, is that we were created by a cruel God who gave us powerful urges on which we are mostly disallowed to act.
So, tgirsch, you would argue that 13-year-old porn parties are a wholly natural, healthy, and appropriate human behavior?
John asks the titillating question:
"So, tgirsch, you would argue that 13-year-old porn parties are a wholly natural, healthy, and appropriate human behavior?"
My question is: 13-year-old porn party(s)???? Man, I missed out on those. I was too busy playing Dungeons and Dragons. Does Spin the Bottle count as "porn"?
As far what is "natural, healthy and appropriate," what is natural and healthy is for people to start having sex with each other as soon as they feel like it.
What qualifies as "appropriate" depends on arbitrarily evolved societal conventions, arbitrary religious beliefs, and one's own peculiar tastes.
I feel like kicking the crap out of you Larry. When is an appropriate time for me to act on that desire? Just ya know, asking.
Actually, Larry, I was speaking of the Rockdale County incident in Georgia, where a large number of middle school and early high school children contracted sexually transmitted diseases through porn parties at which they engaged in orgies (for lack of a better term). There was a PBS special about the incident. These kids thought they were ready for such behavior, and that it was cool. I wish you could have seen the destruction it caused, and the pain both the parents and the children endured.
This is not natural, good, or appropriate. It could have happened at any point in history, sure. But similar things are occurring way too often today; and often they are connected with media images that encourage such behavior and the parental neglect that allows for the congregation of dozens of children having sex in their parents' homes.
Maybe part of the problem is that so many people can no longer see how emotionally, spiritually, and physically damaging this is. They would just say that the kids should have used condoms...
Gdub lets his emotions take over:
"I feel like kicking the crap out of you Larry. When is an appropriate time for me to act on that desire?"
I would say after I threaten to imminently harm you or someone else while standing within crap-kicking distance of you. I can't imagine that ever happening. What could you possible do or say to me which would cause me to threaten you like that?
John:
Where did I say that? But fifteen-year-olds are hard-wired to want sex a lot, which is a shame since it's going to be at least three years before they're going to get a God-approved crack at it.
Gdub:
Are you strongly biologically inclined to kick the crap out of Larry? Is it something that virtually everyone your age is hormonally inclined to do? If not, your analogy falls completely flat.
John:
Here's the thing: I agree with you. The problem is, teenagers are hormones with feet, who naturally have a strong desire for sexual release, and we simply don't give them any legitimate outlet for that release. They're just supposed to ignore it -- to the exclusion of even masturbation -- until they find "the one," which some never do.Imagine being hungry all the time, and not being allowed to eat at all. That's analogous to what we ask teens to do with sex. Are they going to die without it, as they would without food? No. But it's still a strong biological urge -- one of the strongest we ever experience. There has to be a better answer than "ignore it."
John wrote
"I wish you could have seen the destruction it caused, and the pain both the parents and the children endured."
I'll keep my eyes open for that Frontline episode if it runs again. Sounds like sad story for all the parties involved.
I think the term "destruction" is a little extreme. No one died or was permanently injured by syphillis right?
It'll be interesting to see if the kids involved in the sex parties end up faring worse than the kids in Conyers Georgia who found other ways to keep themselves from going bored out of their minds in the miserable suburban wasteland where they found themselves trapped.
I recall first hearing about sexually transmitted diseases when I was 12. I knew about them even earlier in Mad comic books. It's definitely something to watch out for.
But sex for teens is not in itself dangerous or destructive. I mean, geezus, about half my school got laid for the first time when they were 14 or so. And I don't see any significant difference in "success" or "happiness" between those who had sex at 14 and those who "waited" or couldn't find a mate until later. People have been having sex when they reach puberty since ... well, forever. It's a perfectly normal thing to do, always has been, and always will be.
One piece of advice I'd give my kid is to try to make sure that whoever you do it with first hasn't done it with twenty other people beforehand.
[Well, Larry, the more parents give that last bit of advice, the more society will begin to approximate what those who teach sexual morality have in mind.]
I think the guys who are talking about the strangeness of puberty being such a long wait are *way* overstating the case, but there is a case to be made here. One interesting problem we face in almost all post-industrial society is the *extreme* delay of marriage. Now, the causes and consequences of that are complex and not enough studied, but I would suggest that they are real; that some of them are simple side-effects of otherwise good things, while others are unforeseen consequences of short-sighted social engineering; and that one of the most obvious problems which delayed marriage causes is a much lower probability of waiting, a much larger separation between the desire and its right fulfillment, and a considerably larger pool of "experienced" single people floating around our HS/college circles, generally seeking further experiences.
It's something we *should* study, because I think a lot of our other decision-making is going to be underinformed if we don't consider that side. In the end, though, the change to be made is not according to the will of advertisers, nor of producers, nor of politicians, but of God working in His church and the hearts and minds of His children--parents and sons and daughters alike.
Cheers,
PGE
Errata: I meant "single life after puberty" above. Giggle all you like.
Also, I thought I'd hit the TV side of the coin: Despite being among those who are completely absorbed when watching TV, I have never owned one of my own. I grew up with one in my home, but in college and then in grad school and now in Japan--I just never got around to getting one, never wanted one badly enough to set it up. I watch DVDs on my laptop when I need to slacken my brain a bit.
I certainly don't want one for the "news"! LOL.
Michael said: "Briefly, you could do a study that shows a strong correlation between Teens with sexually transmitted diseases and Teens who watch a lot of T.V. (Same results as the study, Teens who have more sex are more likely to get STD’s). But it would be ludicrous to suggest that watching TV causes STD’s."
Why is this so ludicrous?
This sounds hauntingly like people who don't believe that smoking cigarettes causes heart attacks. And after all, because atherosclerosis is what causes heart attacks, they're right, in an extremely superficial way. The fact is that cigarette smoking dramatically hastens atherosclerosis, which in turn causes heart attacks.
What is well known is that teens are MUCH more likely than the general public (even the promiscuous general public) to contract STD's. (Why? Because they generally use poorer judgement, and engage in high risk sex and are less likely to do things to help decrease that risk, like use condoms). This isn't the belief of some secret society; just check out the latest STD report from the CDC or MMWR. What you attack as "ludicrous" is simply the effect of a second cause and effect relationship: teens who a [engage in sex] are very likely to b [contract STD's]; teens who c [watch more TV] are more likely to a [engage in sex]. Therefore, since a makes b more likely, and c makes a more likely, it certainly follows that c also makes b more likely. You're right, in the sense that it doesn't prove causality, (and yes, not every kid who watches Everwood is going to become HIV positive before graduating from high school!) But what you mock is exactly the sort of theorem that epidemiology is built upon, and leads to "proven" facts that we now take for granted (like chosing to be the Marlboro man makes you more likely to be the "I need a cornoary bypass" man--for years the epidemiology [ie: evidence on the order of what this study shows] was there, but it's only been in the last 10 years or so that science has actually been able to elucidate the biological mechanisms. Some people were foolish enough to scoff at the Surgeon General back in the '60's; many of them are now either dead, or carrying oxygen tanks around with them on the rare days they have enough energy to venture out in public).
What's ludicrous is people who are presented with good, sound evidence of the risks of a behavior, and refuse to change... (and I'd say a study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal that's the leading journal in it's specialty that found statistical significance in the predictive nature of one behavior on another is good evidence).
I spend a good part of my day every day (professionally) trying to convince people to not engage in behavior that puts their health at risk. (Before you jump on me as some sort of prudish killjoy, understand that I work in healthcare... I'd be remiss if I didn't!). I present the facts to people, and when you get down to the bottom line, most people who turn me down on help for lifestyle changes don't do it because they disbelieve the evidence; many are honest they don't want to change because it would put a crimp on their preferred lifestyle. Others, however, say things like "Well, tobacco wouldn't be dangerous if the government didn't spray so many chemicals on it" and similar conspiratorial type beliefs.
So that leaves the question: Do you mock the potential danger of television watching because you really think you know better than a team of professional healthcare researchers, and truly believe that there's not a chance in the world that having a teenager watch sexual behavior on TV might increase their odds of engaging in intercourse themselves (and, in turn, contracting an STD), or because the evidence they found necessitates a change in behavior if you really believe it?