Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sexy Media....not good

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sexy Media....not good

    Here is an article my g/f shared with me....results of a recent study examining the effects of a sexualized media in this country.

    Sexy Media & Promiscuity

  • #2
    Here is an article my g/f shared with me....results of a recent study examining the effects of a sexualized media in this country.

    Sexy Media & Promiscuity

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not at all surprised by the findings of the study cited in the article. I've been arguing for awhile that our media environment promotes trivialized and ubiquitous sexuality.

      Of course the advertising media is probably worse than the programs - there sex is used to sell and is never put into a responsible or mature context, the exception being condom ads (go figure). At least on TV programs when underage sex is depicted, it is usually put in context and deals with questions of responsibility and consequences - (which may be part of why TV sucks, it acts bad and then turns it into an afterschool special). Promiscuity among adults is totally accepted, with barely a nod towards responsible behavior or respect.

      Of course with all this sexploitation going on, you'd think it would at least teach kids to be comfortable with their bodies.

      Nope.

      If anything its the opposite. Kids are taught promiscuity is OK, but nudity is gross unless you are 'hot' and it leads to sex.

      Let's start a campaign to get the media to present non-sexual nudity and more married sex. For the sake of the kids.

      Think that will fly?

      -Mark

      Comment


      • #4
        Interesting post. I do not feel ads or anything else leads kids to have intercourse earlier then normal. Kids mature faster then ever before, learn more then ever before, hear more then ever before and there is a natural AGE OLD inclination to experiment. That has gone on since the beginning of time.
        I agree more constructive promotion and marketing towards youth is on call and long overdue with regard to nudity of a non sexual meaning but as for promoting sexual intercourse? No way. Thats keeping with some RRR doctrines methinks and dangerouse thinking at that. And yes, I do know from experience both with myself and those in my family who are younger.

        -Danee

        Comment


        • #5

          Two well posted points. I am all for more non-sexual nudity on TV and other media outlets. I feel there is much too much sex oriented shows on TV and in the movies.

          Nudity is not shown in its proper context here in the States. It is almost always shown as being sexual in nature. There are many shows that talk a lot about sex as if it is nothing more than recreation.

          The article will lead the RRR to bolster their efforts to ban nudity from the media as they see "nudity equals sex".

          Comment


          • #6
            quote:
            Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
            Here is an article my g/f shared with me....results of a recent study examining the effects of a sexualized media in this country.

            Sexy Media & Promiscuity


            I'm not fully in line with DoctorSurferDude's summary and the article's headline.

            First, there is a strong difference between a correlation and a causal relationship. Given the amount of sexual content in teen music, TV programming, magazines, etc., I doubt if one can really expect that some teens just happened to have more exposure to sexy media than others (unless they had an Amish control group). I would propose instead that, like the actual article suggests, that teens with better sex education and maturity tended to postpone the age of sexual intercourse and, because of their higher maturity were simply not as influenced by, or had as much interest in, sexy media.

            There's more than enough sexy media outside the U.S. so why does the U.S. have particularly bad stats on teen sexual activity. In particular, why do Bible-pounding, abstinence-only, religious right areas have the worst stats? My guess is that the main culprit is sexual ignorance, not sexy media.

            Like Danee, I expect the RRR will have a field day with this study, going far beyond what the actual study says and using it in their goals to control all media in the U.S.

            Comment


            • #7
              I doubt that it is simply coincidental that societies which demonstrate less irresponsible sexual activity by "underage" and (oh! my!, oh! my!) unmarried individuals are more secular.

              For one thing, they are not burdended with an irrational disconnect between nudity and sexuality, a problem pervasive in our society (as amply demonstrated by the puritanical mind set of our topic starter).

              It is always amusing to read the faith based quibbling about definitions, the provenance and relevence of documents and their interpretations by those disposed to argue from "Holy authority".

              b.l.

              Comment


              • #8
                The RRR isn't based in reality anyway so what they make of the 'survey' is of no consequence, they have overplayed their hand already and the rest of the world much less the United States isn't listening to them at all ... and boy is it pissing them off.

                In the States nudity will always be linked to sexual activity until the day we cast off the last stubborn vestiages of the crackpots once and forever called "puritans" even though there was nothing "pure" about them.

                TV, Movies and Print Ad Media all remain under the purile influence of the "pruitans" even today but there are cracks in the wall and the RRR(aka FCC) is desperatly trying to spackle the cracks using 'fines' as spackle ... something they've done before ... remember it was Fred and Wilma that shared the same bed as a married couple for the first time on TV and did that cause a stink ... today another animated show is leading the way called "The Family Guy", "Peter Griffin" is keeping the RRR up at nights (they've given up on "Bart Simpson").

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:
                  Originally posted by Danee:
                  Interesting post. I do not feel ads or anything else leads kids to have intercourse earlier then normal. Kids mature faster then ever before, learn more then ever before, hear more then ever before and there is a natural AGE OLD inclination to experiment. That has gone on since the beginning of time.
                  I agree more constructive promotion and marketing towards youth is on call and long overdue with regard to nudity of a non sexual meaning but as for promoting sexual intercourse? No way. Thats keeping with some RRR doctrines methinks and dangerouse thinking at that. And yes, I do know from experience both with myself and those in my family who are younger.

                  -Danee


                  Some excellent points. For the study to carry any significant weight, one also has to buy into the myth that teen sexuality is something new. In the "good old days" teens had sex and got pregnant. My mother was 18 and unmarried when she got pregnant with my oldest sibling, back in the days of "Father Knows Best". Her mother was 16 (or perhaps younger) and unmarried when she got pregnant with my mother.

                  These weren't rare occurances. In those days, teen sexuality and pregnancy were often hidden. Pregnant girls were sent off to live with distant relatives and cover stories were concocted. In other cases, they were sent to homes specially run for pregnant teens where their children were taken from them at birth and put up for adoption amid great secrecy. And of course, although illegal at that time, abortion was available and did occur, though it was much more dangerous due to it being forced underground.

                  Teen pregnancy rates in the US actually experienced a sharp decline from 1990 to 1997 (21% in the 15-17 year old age bracket) , but the RRR didn't tell you about that.

                  In 2000, the birth rate for U.S. teenagers was 48.7 births per 1000 women aged 15-19.

                  In 1940 the birth rate for U.S. teenagers was 54.1 births per 1000 women aged 15-19 (about 11 percent higher than in 2000).

                  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

                  Funny how all those teenagers got pregnant in 1940 without a sexualized media.

                  Dave

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    quote:
                    Teen pregnancy rates in the US actually experienced a sharp decline from 1990 to 1997 (21% in the 15-17 year old age bracket) , but the RRR didn't tell you about that.


                    And the RRR hasn't told you that since 2001 when 'abstinence only' became the standard for sex education, abortion rates have again increased .

                    -Mark

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What's interesting to me is that in the family parks, the kids are NOT exposed to the sexual activities we see outside the park. I mean, petting, etc, is not permitted.
                      About the only exposure they get there is whatever they see on TV in their own trailers. Tell that to the RRR.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I was bothered by one part of the article listed here:

                        The effect was not as pronounced for blacks, the study said, perhaps because the black youngsters in the study were already more sexually experienced than the whites were when the research began and thus were less influenced by media exposure over the two-year period.

                        The use of "perhaps" actually removes credibility from the study because they are guessing and the guessing fuels the false rumor that blacks are hypersexual beings. It just takes away the legitimacy of the report.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:
                          Originally posted by Daveinct:



                          In 2000, the birth rate for U.S. teenagers was 48.7 births per 1000 women aged 15-19.

                          In 1940 the birth rate for U.S. teenagers was 54.1 births per 1000 women aged 15-19 (about 11 percent higher than in 2000).

                          http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

                          Funny how all those teenagers got pregnant in 1940 without a sexualized media.

                          Dave


                          Very dangerous thinking. There are so many other things involved in this, which can have greater influence than media that it is much better to skip this as an argument.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sauna,

                            If you admit that media can have some influence on your children, then guiding what your children watch on television should be part of what you do to raise them with good values.

                            Perhaps to a large extent, excessive and uncontrolled television watching is a symptom of inattentive, negligent parenting and less a cause of poor choices by children and teens.

                            But some programs obviously have the effect of teaching that nudity is for sex.

                            Children's best hope for learning good values comes from a large quantity of high quality time with their parents and grandparents in an open honest loving relationship.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "The teenage pregnancy rate in the United States is three to 10 times higher than that found in other industrialized nations, making that and exposure to sexually transmitted infections a major public health concern, the study said."

                              3 to 10 times higher. If I couldn't get better results than that from a survey I'd toss it in File 13

                              "In general it found that the highest exposure levels led to more sexual activity, with white teens in the group 2.2 times more likely to have had intercourse at ages 14 to 16 than similar youngsters who had the least exposure."

                              totally ignoring the possibility that these teens are already sexually active before they watch or listen to said media. It's possible they are exposed to other influences (peer pressure) aside from the media at the same time.
                              Maybe they are putting the cart before the horse.


                              "At the same time parents tend not to talk about sex with their children in a timely and comprehensive way"

                              I wonder if there is a study that combines watching the Sexual media, and good Parenting. If a child is being exposed to sexual material, it's time for the parent to EXPLAIN what it is about. Not to hide them from it and leave them IGNORANT.

                              PERHAPS(and I only use this word in response to the articles use of the word)
                              The problem isn't being exposed to sexual material. But Rather the problem is treating sex as a FORBIDDEN FRUIT.
                              If answers are not provided for children,by their parents, they will find other ways to get the answers.

                              Steve

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X