Keegan 1
Kelsey Keegan
Professor Feeney
Media 160B
21 December 2010
Sex Sells: But at What Cost?
We have all heard the old adage “sex sells,” and with today’s extremely pervasive
entertainment industry, no one is more aware of this concept than teenagers. Teens continue to
be the target group of large advertising companies who utilize extreme measures to sell a product
or brand name — many by using sexual themes to play on the insecurities of today’s youth.
More specifically though, television has become one of the major ways in which younger
audiences are exposed to and learn about sexual content. Many believe this continual pushing-ofthe-envelope tactic has gone too far in its effects on teenagers; believing that it negatively
influences their morals. Many think that there is a link between teen viewing of sexual content
on TV and negative behavioral effects, including an increase in sexual activity and subsequently,
in teen pregnancy. The discussion of sexual content on television and its effects on teenagers will
be covered starting with the current situation, moving into analysis of the various effects, and
ending with proposed solutions.
To begin, “television viewing”—whether in front of a TV set, on a laptop, cell phone, or
iPod—continues to “dominate media consumption, taking up about 4 ½ hours a day in young
people’s lives” (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts 3). Take into account also that among all 8- to 18year olds polled in 2009, the percent that lived in homes with at least one TV was 99%, with the
average household containing about 3.8 TVs (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts 9). Interestingly
enough, 11- to 14-year-olds watch about five hours of television a day, with 15- to 18-year-olds
watching about 4 ½ hours, and 8- to 10-year-olds watching about four hours a day (Rideout,
Foehr, & Roberts 5). Just as children begin to make the transition into adolescence, their media
Keegan 2
use explodes. This amount of exposure to television offers ample time for various programs to
portray and discuss sexual situations. Each year, teenagers view nearly “15,000 sexual
references, innuendoes, and jokes, of which 170 will deal with abstinence, birth control, sexually
transmitted diseases, or pregnancy” and the “so-called family hour of prime time television (8 to
9 PM) contains more than 8 sexual incidents per hour, more than four times as much as in 1976”
(Strasburger and Donnerstein). As if puberty isn’t hard enough, younger generations are now
faced with even more media pressures as TV shows offer “a constant stream of messages about
[…] peers, relationships, gender roles, [and] sex” (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts 1).
The subject of sex has been “part of the medium almost since its start. But displays of
sex, intimacy and even body parts, for the most part, have been evolutionary” (Strauss).
According to Gary Strauss in his USA Today article “Sex on TV: It’s increasingly uncut—and
unavoidable”:
In the 1950s, TV couldn't show married couples sleeping in the same bed. In the '60s,
exposing the bellybutton of I Dream of Jeannie's Barbara Eden was verboten. Braless
jiggles on Charlie's Angels were considered daring in the '70s. But by the '90s, the
expanse of adult-themed content on premium channels such as HBO and sex-infused
music videos on MTV made baring the derriere of a hefty NYPD Blue cop acceptable
to the masses on ABC.
This evolution has come about because of increased competition for attention. FX programming
chief John Landgraf, whose groundbreaking series such as Rescue Me and Nip/Tuck set new
standards for mature content on basic cable, states that “You can definitely see an arms race”
(qtd. in Strauss). The fierce rivalry to outplay, or rather out-sex, other television programs is
clear in Spike TV programming chief Kevin Kay’s comment that “You need to get eyeballs. You
Keegan 3
need to be loud. Our viewers are experiencing content on other cable channels or the Web.
Movies and video games are going after this audience, too” (qtd. in Strauss). It’s clear broadcast
executives acknowledge that premium-channel and basic-cable-channel rivals are altering the TV
landscape; NBC’s Angela Bromstad comments that “We don't want to be out of touch with the
way society is going,” and Doug Herzog, president of MTV Networks entertainment group,
states: “The line moves every day, so [we have] got to move with it” (qtd. in Strauss).
This intense competition and desire to “get eyeballs” leads to heavy doses of sexual
content, ranging from “touching, kissing, jokes, and innuendo to conversations about sexual
activity and portrayals of intercourse. Sex is often presented as a casual activity without risk or
consequences” and is also portrayed as being cool, fun, and exciting (RAND Health). According
to RAND Health, “conventional wisdom holds that the messages young viewers absorb from
television promote sexual activity in this group;” however, “despite the prevalence of this view,
there has been little empirical study to date of how watching sex on television influences
teenagers’ sexual behavior” (RAND Health). Critics, such as the Parents Television Council,
condemn the increasing sexual content in today’s media. Council president Tim Winter states
“Families are under siege, teenage girls are under siege. [We] don't know what the cultural
impact will be down the road” (qtd. in Strauss).
While some may not know the exact effects that viewing sexual content can have on
teenagers, many believe there is a strong correlation between the two. One RAND study, funded
by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, found that youths who
viewed the greatest amounts of sexual content were “two times more likely than those who
viewed the smallest amount to initiate sexual intercourse during the following year or to progress
to more-advanced levels of other sexual activity” (RAND Health). The study also identified
Keegan 4
other factors that increased the likelihood that teens would initiate intercourse, including “being
older, having older friends, getting lower grades, engaging in rule-breaking, […] and sensationseeking” (RAND Health). In addition, a different set of factors was found to decrease the
likelihood of first intercourse. Many of these factors centered on parent characteristics, including
“having parents who monitored teens’ activities, having parents who were more educated or who
were clearly disapproving of teens’ having sexual relations, and living with both parents” but
other factors that reduced the likelihood of having sex included “being more religious and feeling
less depressed or anxious than other youths” (RAND Health). Most of these characteristics were
also related to how much sex teens saw on television; however, viewing sexual content on TV
was related to advances in sexual behavior even after these other factors were taken into account.
While several studies suggest a strong correlation between sexual content on TV and
increased sexual activity, some believe that sexual subject matter isn’t such a bad thing. One
such person, Paul Levinson, a Fordham University media observer, states that TV simply mirrors
life: “It sounds radical, but this is healthy for popular culture. Mainstream TV has been frozen in
a very puritanical position by Congress, the FCC and the Supreme Court — all who don't seem
to understand the First Amendment. Sex is part of life. If people are offended, there's a simple
remedy: Don't watch” (qtd. in Strauss). In addition to this, some view the portrayal of sexual
content as an educational tool of sorts. One study by the Kaiser Family Foundation examined the
effect on teenage viewers of an episode of Friends that dealt with condom efficacy; the
researchers concluded that “entertainment shows that include portrayals of sexual risks and
consequences” can potentially have “two beneficial effects on teen sexual awareness: They can
teach accurate messages about sexual risks, and they can stimulate a conversation with adults
that can reinforce those messages” (RAND Health). Despite the alleged negative consequence of
Keegan 5
increased teenage sexuality, the portrayal of sexual content on television can and should be
utilized as an educational device—a device that is used to teach correct facts about sex and to
initiate discussion between teens and their parents, counselors, and physicians.
While some are still unsure of the exact consequences of viewing sexual content on TV,
most believe there is a strong link between viewing and increased sexual activity. Because of
this, numerous solutions have been proposed in attempt to decrease the amount of teen exposure
to sexual content, in hopes of reducing the amount of adolescent sexual activity. These solutions
range from “controlling the way children view media (parent's role),” by keeping a close eye on
children’s media use and implementing rules regarding viewing time and content, “to more
effective office counseling and public health activism (educator/physician’s role) to regulating
the media (governmental role),” by creating and/or strengthening national media policies, “to
improving the product itself (entertainment industry's role),” by program creators and television
stations being more aware and cautious of how they portray and discuss such topics (Strasburger
and Donnerstein).
Despite many solutions, it seems that the most widely accepted is that of the parent’s role
in mediating their children’s television use. Essentially, according to Kay Hymowitz’s article
“Parenting: The Lost Art,” parents need to step up and be authoritative when it comes to laying
down rules concerning TV use. Parents are obliged to teach their children “self-control, civility,
and a meaningful way of understanding the world” but in this day and age, parents have become
confused about how to raise their children and are rather uncomfortable disciplining them—
many choose to be “parent-friends” (Hymowitz 1). According to Hymowitz, these parent-friends
are “not only incapable of helping their children resist the siren call of a sensational, glamorous
media; in a desperate effort to confirm their ‘good relationship’ with their kids, they actively
Keegan 6
reinforce it. They buy them their own televisions, [and] they give them guilt money […] to plan
endless entertainments” (Hymowitz 2). Hymowitz also states that there are some parents who
“dimly realize the failure of their experiment in peer-parenting” and that these parents “reduce
their role to exercising damage control over kids they assume ‘are going to do it anyway.’ For
them, there is only one value left they are comfortable fighting for: safety” (3).
Neither this give-up attitude nor the role of the parent-friend help in the efforts of
reducing teens’ exposure to sexual content. Perhaps the role of more authoritative and open
parents (who are willing to discuss such issues), an increase in government policies that limit the
amount of sexual content on television, and an augment in sexual health education and
awareness by counselors, health advocates, and educators are all necessary to provide teenagers
with a solid foundation of knowledge as they grow into their adulthood and face today’s societal
pressures. If teens are well-informed and surrounded by support groups—by people who uphold
good morals—it is likely that teens will be intellectually prepared when it comes time to make
serious decisions about sex. Media, and television in particular, plays a large role in how sex is
constructed in the minds of teenagers; understanding this role is essential in order to promote the
healthy development of children, teenagers, and adults alike.
Keegan 7
Works Cited
Hymowitz, Kay S. “Parenting: The Lost Art.” American Educator. (Spring 2001): 4-9. Web.
18 Dec. 2010. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2001/parenting.
html.
RAND Health. “Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity?.”
RAND Corporation. 16 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Dec. 2010.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/index1.html.
Rideout, Victoria J., Ulla G. Foehr, and Donald F. Roberts. “Generation M: Media in the Lives
of 8- to 18 Year-Olds.” www.kff.org (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation). (January
2010): 1-85. Web. 17 Dec. 2010. http://kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm.
Strasburger, Victor C., and Edward Donnerstein. “Children, Adolescents, and the Media: Issues
and Solutions.” American Academy of Pediatrics 103.1 (1999): 129-139. Web.
18 Dec. 2010. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/1/129.
Strauss, Gary. “Sex on TV: It's increasingly uncut — and unavoidable.” USA Today.
20 Jan. 2010. Web. 18 Dec. 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/201001-20-sexcov20_CV_N.htm.