November 3, 2008

Sex on TV...

... is getting teenagers pregnant.

UPDATE: Oh my, is this post ever dragging in the search engine traffic! I did not do that on purpose.

23 comments:

The Counterfactualist said...

Good.

KCFleming said...

So your parents were right about Elvis.

What a shock.

Welcome to liberalization, where exploring your sexulaity is more important than everything else. The liberal answer to this, of course is not restraint, but condoms and OCPs.

Same old same old.

El Presidente said...

Can't we just blame their parents and move on?

MadisonMan said...

In the old days, when rabbit ears were on top of the set, sex there was more difficult.

I'd think with wall-mounted flat-screens, though, the ability to have sex on the TV will diminish.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Chandra acknowledged that other factors might play a role but said the findings are compelling because
the researchers were able to track the teens over time and found such a striking relationship.
"The magnitude of the association we did see was very strong," she said.


The article makes no mention if the BET demographic was included in the study.
If it were, my assumption would be that the magnitude of the association was unduly burdened.

bill said...

I envy the young with their flexibility and dexterity in not falling off all those flat screens. Especially those mounted to the walls. Me, I've moved on to the drier with its comforting vibrating warmth. With an empty one, toss in a dryer ball for some rhythmic variations and fresh scent.

Joe M. said...

"The researchers took into account other factors such as having only one parent, wanting to have a baby and engaging in other risky behaviors."

Hah.

Joe M. said...

So how long 'til the lefties come out to deride the method?

Can't speak to that, but the *result* certainly makes sense.

Palladian said...

I recommend homosexual sex as a remedy for teenage pregnancy.

Bissage said...

For many thousands of your Earth years we have known that your human females are susceptible to what the people of my home planet call “peer-pressure.”

The puny efforts of the ones you call parents and religious leaders and gym teachers masquerading as educators are futile. Our evil plan to conquer your Earth will now come to fruition as we have given your species the technologic sophistication to invent the radiation emitting communication device that will cause your DOOM!

For you are all social animals, foolish weak-willed creatures by our standards, no better than the four-legged beasts you call dogs that eat, sleep and run all together in a pack.

It should interest you to know that we have assumed the physical form of human males with enormous genitals and that we have been impregnating your teenage females using the doggie position.

Synova said...

And, of course, the amount of sex on television has nothing to do with the overall weakening of social restrictions on sexual behavior. The amount of television and which shows watches as nothing to do with the overall attitude within a household concerning the overall weakening of social restrictions on sexual behavior. The amount of television watched as no relationship to the presence of other activities in the young person's life that might occupy a significant amount of their time and energy.

You know... someone got paid for doing this study.

It was probably tax money, too.

William said...

Sex and the City makes me want to join a monastery.

Christy said...

Much as I want to mock the study, I remember that we have a Billion Dollar advertising industry devoted to the concept that showing attractive people doing fun stuff changes our behavior.

Best ever educational film on sex: the episode, and the ones immediately following, when Buffy has sex with Angel. Consequences!

Parker Smith said...

William -

That's funny - it makes me want to join a convent...

ricpic said...

Used to be you could have sex on TV, nowadays you'd fall off the wall.

blake said...

Do I have to be the first to say "Correlation is not causation"?

First!

blake said...

Though, the freakin' Simpsons last night had Abraham Lincoln telling Homer that he and Mrs. Lincoln had an "understanding" and then grabbing Homer's ass.

My daughter was really confused by that.

Thanks, Matt.

bearing said...

2 observations:

(1) Some experts say the study shows we need more abstinence education. Other experts say the study shows we need more contraception education plus education about delaying sexual intercourse. Doesn't anyone seem to think the study shows we need to turn the damn TV off?

(2) The researchers recommend that parents "spend more time monitoring and discussing" what their children watch. Are parents, then, expected to be completely passive, only being aware of what their kids watch ("monitoring") and reacting to it ("discussing")? Ought not parents try to influence what children watch, and how much of it?

Heck, if turning off the TV or saying "No, you can't watch that show" is too draconian, we could at least recommend that parents model appropriate TV-watching behavior. I suppose this is too radical a notion.

bleeper said...

Sounds uncomfortable.

Joe said...

Wow, a study found that people with high sex drives liked watching sexual content.

paul a'barge said...

dog bites man ... film at 11:00

Revenant said...

Sex on TV is getting teenagers pregnant.

The study didn't find that. It found a correlation between watching sexual content on TV and getting pregnant. Given that horny people do more of both, I'd have been shocked if there WASN'T a correlation.

reader_iam said...

The article makes no mention if the BET demographic was included in the study.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you'd just do that, there'd be no room for speculation, less reason for suspicion.

Let me help you with one starter, for example: There are differences in birth rates between white and black teen-aged girls.

Why the hell is that so hard to say outright?

Once you can do that, please do then state clearly and flatly the whole BET connection.