|
|
and lots sorrier. So?
Real debate is over tube's ability to shape values
By David Everitt
How much safe sex do we need? And how much unsafe sex can we stand?
These are questions that the Kaiser Family Foundation has grappled with in the last couple of years. According to the health organization’s "Sex on TV" study, its second in the last two years, TV characters have become more randy and less careful. And, consequently, less likely to offer instructive life lessons.
"The most significant thing to come out of this study is that, despite the fact that the amount of sexual content has gone up, the rate at which these scenes deal with safe sex issues has not gone up," says Victoria Rideout, Kaiser Family Foundation vice president and director of the "Sex on TV" study.
Currently, safe-sex messages appear in only one out of 10 sexual scenes.
Some findings, though, are encouraging, says Rideout.
Sexual content involving either actual intercourse or teen characters tends to include precautionary messages more often than other sexual scenes.
"I’m hoping that this can make a difference in normalizing sexual behavior," Rideout says.
Not so encouraging for the Kaiser foundation is the direction taken by sitcoms. Compared to study results two years ago, the number of sitcoms containing sexual content rose from 56 to 84 percent.
"There are many more important influences on young people’s sexual development than TV," Rideout says, "but it can be an influence. I believe it can play a positive, effective role. If we have to rely on pamphlets and health clinics, we’re not going to get the message out."
Rideout’s willingness to qualify this last assertion exemplifies the reasonable tone of the "Sex on TV" study.
"The Kaiser Family Foundation report is not the usual report on this subject," says Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University’s Center for the Study of Popular Television. "Usually these reports tell us that the sky is falling. But this one is pretty sane and well-argued."
Still, Thompson takes issue with the study on a few points.
"I think there are a couple of spooky things here having to do with some underlying assumptions. First, anytime that some organization starts counting incidents of sex or violence on TV there is the immediate assumption that they are dealing with something bad, something dangerous.
"There is the assumption that the argument is over, that everyone agrees, and that it’s an established fact that these things pose a threat.
"And, of course, whenever we find everyone agrees about something, then we’re in trouble."
He points out that occasionally there are a few voices in the wilderness questioning the negative effect of TV sex or violence "but the fact is, when you look at all the research that supposedly establishes the danger of this stuff, it really is pretty lame."
The second assumption Thompson questions has to do with the idea that TV is an instructional medium.
Actually, the "Sex on TV" study doesn’t make any huge claims in terms of TV’s influence. In fact, it points out that the most useful, instructive shows usually have only a short-term effect, adding that frequent repetition of lessons is required.
But Thompson believes this is still overstating TV’s power in this area.
"If we’ve reached a state," he says, "where kids are learning their primary sex education from TV, the problem is not how sex is portrayed or how often. The problem is why are people finding their primary sex education on TV."
Does TV have any instructional value?
"TV is really good at amusing people who are half-asleep," Thompson says, "and it’s pretty good at dealing with breaking news stories. And in the short term, it’s very good at influencing stylistic things. There’s probably nothing better than TV when it comes to getting people to adopt new hairstyles. But it’s not much of a tool for solving social problems.
"If viewers are subjected to constant instruction and fear about an issue," he adds, "then of course there’s going to be some impact. But it seems that some people are talking about taking what is most predominantly a medium for fiction and turning it into a public affairs project. I just wonder if there are more efficient ways to educate that don’t impinge on other areas of communication."
As far as impinging goes, what about the whole idea of inserting safe-sex messages into otherwise dramatic or comedic situations? Is this really practical?
Rideout believes it is in many cases, because the message can take a wide variety of forms.
"Anywhere that the show makes even a passing reference to any idea of sexual patience could be useful. It could even be a joke. A lot of shows are doing this and doing it well. Obviously, it’s not appropriate on every show, and I can’t give you a percentage of what would be right. The question is: is it appropriate in more than one out of ten?"
Thompson counters: "From an artist’s perspective it’s not very practical. When you’re telling a story, which is essentially a fantasy, this sort of thing destroys the rhythm of the jokes, the dramatic development and so on."
One thing Rideout and Thompson agree on is the value of keeping the discussion going.
"This report," Thompson says, "definitely serves a purpose. For people who make television, and aren’t otherwise thinking about these issues, it could get them to think about what they’re doing. As long as it’s not taken as something prescriptive but as something to consider."
Echoing this, Rideout says, "The message we’d like to send to TV programmers is that if you include sexual content in your show, think about what you’re communicating to your viewers."
For advertisers, she says, there is also another message.
"We’ve heard stories that certain advertisers get nervous whenever a show includes a scene with, for instance, a condom reference. Please, above all else, don’t shy away from shows that incorporate a safe-sex message."
-David Everitt covers technology for Media Life, writing from Huntington, New York.
Printer-Friendly
Version | Send
to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact
Us
© 2001 Media Life
