Posted on 08/17/2012 10:25:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
Culture Challenge of the Week: Movies "Selling" Sex to Children
Can you name the last five movies your teenage son or daughter has watched with friends? How strong was the sexual content in those movies?
And does it really matter?
New research suggests that it does. The study, conducted by Dr. Ross O'Hara and soon to be published in the journal Psychological Science, found that promiscuity on-screen promotes promiscuity in real life. "Adolescents who are exposed to more sexual content in movies start having sex at younger ages, have more sexual partners," and engage in riskier sexual activities says Dr. O'Hara.
While at Dartmouth University, Dr. O'Hara (now a researcher at the University of Missouri) and his team analyzed the movie-watching patterns of about 1,200 young teens, ages 12-14. Researchers next analyzed the teens' sexual behavior six years later, considering the age at which they became sexually active, their number of partners, and the riskiness of their sexual activity, including whether or not they used contraceptives.
The result: bad news. Young teens who viewed movies with sexual content were profoundly influenced by what they watched. They initiated sexual behavior earlier than their peers who viewed less sexual content, and tended to imitate the on-screen sexual behaviors they saw-which included casual sex, multiple partners, and high-risk behaviors.
It's not surprising, really. Teens crave information about sex--and too often turn to the media for information. Moreover, adolescent hormones operate in overdrive and teens are naturally more sensitive to sexual stimulation. Less likely to delay gratification, teens are more likely to be impulsive and think themselves impervious to harm. The combination, researchers say, means that "sensation seeking, or the tendency to seek more novel and intense sexual stimulation" increases in teens who "watched more movies with sexually explicit content."
So what should parents do?
How to save your Family: Select Movies with Your Children
Dr. O'Hara sums it up well, saying, "This study, and its confluence with other work, strongly suggests that parents need to restrict their children from seeing sexual content in movies at young ages."
Agreed. But unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as checking a movie's rating. In fact, G-rated movies are part of the problem. The O'Hara study also analyzed the sexual content in 700 films, all top-grossing films from 1998-2004. Defining "sexual content" as anything from heavy kissing to actual sex scenes, researchers found sexual content in more than a third of the G-rated movies, more than half of PG-rated films, and four out of every five R-rated movies.
Short of prohibiting movies all together-an unwise and unworkable solution--there are some things a parent can do. First, use websites that provide specific information about movie content, rather than a reviewer's judgment about an appropriate viewing age.
Websites like Pluggedin.com and Movieguide provide not only specifics about movie content but also analysis from a Christian perspective. (PluggedIn offers reviews of music and gaming products as well.) Two straightforward secular sources are Screenit and Kids-in-mind-both provide valuable descriptions of specific movie content, including sexuality, violence, and language. One caution-a few websites, such as CommonSense Media, offer age-ratings to help guide parents. But organizations which lean left, as CommonSense Media does, or are tied in tightly with entertainment industry folks, can't be relied on by parents who want to raise children with traditional values. The Parent's Television Council at www.ParentsTV.org is an excellent resource for information on the content of popular TV shows and offers great movie reviews.
Second, talk with your children about sex. While sex won't be a casual dinnertime conversation topic, you need to create private time with your teens to explore their feelings and questions about sex. If we're silent, our teens will learn about sex from friends and the movies-a route that's sure to normalize sexual risk-taking.
Third, stay in the loop. Talk with other parents and get to know your teen's friends. Realize that at some point your child probably will see something too sexually explicit, whether at a friend's house or on a computer. Keep the conversations going and remind your teens that Hollywood is a world without consequences.
Excellent suggestion :D. I don’t watch slasher films much but I haven’t heard of a modern one where any gays get slashed, it’s always some poor cheerleader and her boyfriend.
Oh come now. Do you even know what a "snuff" movie is? Hint it's not the Gladiator movie with Russell Crowe.
Can't believe you even said Hollywood wants snuff movies.
[BTW, I have all six seasons on DVD that I made, mostly from Youtube airings ... if you'd like 'the set'. I could send you a set but you must not pay even shipping or a penny for them because that would be illegal. Frepmail me if you want the entire set, and some friendly advice on which two episodes to censor before showing to children.]
Compared to the books I’ve read, the Lovejoy character was much more likeable in this show. I hadn’t watched the programs because I didn’t really like the guy, in the books, so this was a pleasant surprise.
If they don’t have episodes in Netflix or in my county library, I’ll keep your offer in mind.
I remember hating the Herbal Essence commercial. It was disgusting.
People want them, so why does Hollywood not provide them? They are all into reality right?
Plenty of beheadings with dull knives posted on the web and if that is a little gory for you, you can watch a few stonings they are a little less bloody, then you might hop over to Egypts reent parties, I understand they have been crucifying some of the opponents of their Spring Fest.
You could always watch some Apache night flights where the poor muslims are like ducks in a pond. Or maybe some long range Sniper fire using the 50 cal, that is alway fun stuff.
Go away and come back when you grow up clown.
Given that they were real people that actually had little Ricky, why yes they were real people. Unfortunately the portrayal of their family that was used to provide entertainment for us, did not reflect their real life. But I doubt any of us are who we pretend to be in public.
Country is getting better anyway in terms of morals. Kids are having less sex in HS, teen out of wedlock births are at 1960's levels... country is righting itself..it always does.
People want realistic movies and tv shows though...if there was a market for hokey 50's style movies and shows they would be made.
????? There was no Lucy and Rick Ricardo and no little Ricky. Those were purely TV fictional characters.
HA-HA-HA
You are mistaking those fictional characters with the married actors Lucille (Ball) and Desi Arnez and their first child Lucie who was a girl. That is who the actor Lucille Ball was pregnant with during the show who THINK was Lucy Ricardo with Little Ricky.
No wonder you think The Tudors is porn and compared it to porn websights. You need to break out of your bubble.
Thanks for the lesson.
I used to watch ILL as a kid , and the follow-on The Lucy Show and so the book interested me. I made it a note to see it which I did
Their two REAL life kids Lucie (who she was pregnant with during the series) and Desi JR did a cameo in one of the last episodes of ILL when they were young.
You know what offends me?
Dick Van Dyke show. Young MTM was HOT, even in black and white. And they had twin beds?
And the bathrooms didn’t have toilets? That is insulting to the viewer’s intelligence. And to children’s intelligence. The first time I saw “I love Lucy” I’m positive I asked my mom why they were in twin beds. Kids know their own parents sleep in the same bed, young kids. They also know people need to have a potty.
” You know what offends me?
Dick Van Dyke show. Young MTM was HOT, even in black and white. And they had twin beds?”
LOL!!! Not with MTM in real life.
She WAS as hottie!
But by the time she reached her own show in the 1970s she had age lines all over and she was kind of annoying and whiny like PMS 24-7. I cant imagine how I watched that show as a kid.
The only 1970s sitcom I still find funny and well done was the original Bob Newhardt show where he played the psychologist. The others look like crap.
Anne was repelled by him in the bed chamber, should could not get past his weight and ulcerated leg. And she was not exactly a Victoria Secrets model herself. But she fared better than his other wives getting a clean divorce and a lifetime pension.
” But by the time she reached her own show in the 1970s she had age lines all over and she was kind of annoying and whiny like PMS 24-7.”
Original DVDyke show was funny and well done.
Mary Tyler Moore Show sucked. I never watched it.
Original Bob Newhart I still watch when it pops up.
Yeah, I read that Henry didn’t find her attractive, or vice-versa. At that point in his life, I certainly wouldn’t have wanted him anywhere near me! It was a pretty good deal for her, in the end, settling in as a distantly-civil acquaintance with a paycheck.
I think the Tudors is porn because there are many pornographic scenes in it.
Your position clarifies your screen name. Maybe you are sick of libs, because you have progressed beyond them.
It’s like anything else...one extreme versus another. There’s no middle ground.
And as for MTM: Hot??? She always seemed kinda matronly to me.
Mary Anne (Dawn Wells) and Ginger (Tina Louise) were hot.... Barbara Eden was hot...
And of course, Raquel Welch...good lord...One Million B.C. and the whole animal skin bikini thing going on...
HA_HA, Little Ricky ......
LOL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.