Reply
Thu 4 Dec, 2003 07:56 am
Children get sex lessons from soaps
TWO-THIRDS of children are getting their information about sex and relationships from soap operas and adult chat shows such as Jerry Springer's, new research will reveal this week.
The two-year study, commissioned by broadcasters and regulators, found the shows covering everything from marital breakdown to incest were regarded as a "useful" or "very useful" source for the "facts of life" by children aged 9 to 17.
Almost 80% of those questioned believed their parents underestimated their sexual knowledge, drawn from programmes such as EastEnders, Trisha and The Jerry Springer Show, all of which are broadcast before the 9pm watershed.
While critics claim it is evidence of children getting a dysfunctional view of sexual relationships, the researchers argue it is providing them with a better insight than sex-education classes in school.
"Children feel that schools don't talk about the emotional complexities of the subject of sex and relationships, which television does," says a source close to the report, which was compiled by researchers at the Institute of Education, part of London University. Teaching in schools is said to be "too narrow" and "moralistic".
However, Susan Stranks, the former presenter of the children's show Magpie and a broadcasting campaigner, was concerned that younger children, particularly, could start to see troubled relationships as the norm.
"My concern is that programmes like The Jerry Springer Show and Trisha are predicated on problems which are in fact quite complicated and sophisticated," she said. "The studios are filled with these people and they present a distorted picture of relationships as always being damaging and problematic."
The research, to be published tomorrow, was based on in-depth interviews and workshops with more than 800 children across England. It was commissioned by the Advertising Standards Authority, the BBC, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the British Board of Film Classification.
It confirmed that the vast majority of the children ?- 89% ?- had a television in their bedroom. Two-thirds said they had seen a programme or video with too much sex in it. Yet only a third of those switched it off.
Although television was a key source for information about sex, two-thirds still said their mother was as important in learning about the facts of life. For most, however, sex education in class was "too didactic" and "narrowly focused".
What most startled the researchers was the precocity of youngsters and the ease with which they discussed subjects formerly considered taboo for minors. A nine-year-old girl told researchers that exposure to sex and marriage break-ups on television was "normal", adding: "They are a part of society even if you don't agree with them."
Another girl remembered being "upset" when at the age of six she watched the character of Mel jilt Ian Beale on their wedding day in EastEnders.
The researchers also asked children to comment on specific programmes, including episodes of The Simpsons in which Homer and Marge have sex in public, of a Britney Spears pop video where she fondles a snake and of Springer's "confession" show which featured two sisters sleeping with the same man.
They found many children understood how the media might be manipulating them. For example, two 12-year-old girls told the researchers: "They use HIV storylines in soaps to get people interested just so they can make more money."
A high proportion also said relationships were set up in television dramas "in order to have a split later on and get a better storyline". Many thought people "faked" problems in order to appear on shows such as Springer's, which often encourage frank admissions from participants about their sexual affairs and obsessions.
The findings, however, confirmed the fears of some experts that children were being introduced to sex at an increasingly younger age. John Beyer, director of the campaign group Mediawatch, said: "At a time when the government is trying to clamp down on teenage pregnancy, this report shows children are not being protected by the watershed.
"Too many programmes have an obsession with all manner of sexual perversions and I am not surprised to hear children feel they know more about sex than their parents."
However, Margaret Hodge, the children's minister, said the findings should be treated with caution. "The report is interesting but what I think it teaches us is that parents can always turn the televisions off if they are worried ?- ultimate responsibility rests with them," she said.
Is it just me, or do you think that TV is destroying a lot of children's innocence. With kids learning about the facts of life from rather perverted sources such as Jerry Springer, Britney Spears and soap operas, should we worry about the future? Why are some parents neglecting their children, putting them in front of a television set for hours on end?
Are you actually suggesting increased censorship? Perhaps we should burn some books while we're at it. Parents are responsible for monitoring what their children watch, not big brother. Would you really like to have it any other way? I personally find all of the mentioned shows deplorable and wouldn't allow them in my home. But, I don't feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else. I'd kinda like to keep what's left of my constitutional rights.
No; if you've read my posts, like the one I wrote, you'd see that I'm /strongly/ against State censorship. In fact, apart from the objectification of women (which I deplore with all my soul), anti-increasing-censorship is one of the causes that I vehemently back. I'm in NO way suggesting that the state should increase censorship. If you read into my words, you would see that I feel that it's down to the parents.
Quote:Why are some parents neglecting their children, putting them in front of a television set for hours on end?
I'm suggesting that some parents ought to have more responsability...
I offer an apology if I have offended you. The fact is; garbage television will exist for as long as it's legal. Asking "Won't someone please think of the children?" didn't strike me as a call out to parents. Apparently, I inferred something you never implied. I stand corrected. Bill
Oh sorry... no, 'Won't someone please think of the children?' was a joke related to this, although it's the children whom I'm thinking about.
No, don't worry... I don't hold mistakes against people; everyone makes them some time or another....
Lucky that Indian children are not exposed to the kind of stuff mentioned in your post.
But, still, we parents are cautious about the kind of channels they watch - mostly the pulp Hindi and regional films dance numbers, where the gyration of the female body and the exploration of it by the lead-man is the norm. Making fun of the lady and their attire is what the hero does to get their love....This is what worrying the conscious parent the most...
We do have people who, enjoy such shows with their kids. They do not realise that their children would be carrying an impression at the end that eve teasing is what heroism all about...
Kids, everywhere, needs the help of the adults to get a positive frame of mind when entering the true world on their own......
Thanks for the good reading provided.....
As an experienced parent, children will ask questions when they want to know. Are television-watching kids in 2003 more exposed to sex than children who grew up in one room log cabins or sleeping in a baronial great hall?
I'm far more worried about television presenting singgering sex than kids picking up sexual information. After all, sex is a large part of life.
By the by, I certainly support parental choice over network censorship.
More later. I'm back from an eye exam and my eyes are blurry with drops.
Thank you both for your replies.
It's really interesting to hear about the situation in India. Indian movies are becoming quite popular amongst some English people; I think that they think Indian movies are more wholesome, although there are movies like those which you have mentioned... how great do you think Western influence is in India at the moment?
It's not exactly the exposure to sex at such a young age that worries me (although seven-year-olds asking from bras and talking about sex doesn't please me), but rather the examples that such things are setting. In soaps, you have complete sluts getting the man; that can't be a good example for young minds. Then one has children who watch Jerry Springer, with cheesegrater men, adult babies, people who think that they're the devil; it's great negligence on the parent's part to let their children grow up with such warped rôle models surrounding them...
By the way, I hope everything went OK, Noddy.
D&R--
Crazy-making as it may be, parents do use the One Eyed Monster as The Complete Babysitter. I don't approve, but I'm not going to break into these houses and wreck the television sets.
I don' t have the results of the tests, yet, but they were Just-In-Case. If worse comes to worst, the problem (glaucoma) will be identified and treated early.
There is a lot to the heritage of India. What I had mentioned earlier is all about the commercial movies. Some good movies are also made with the Indian values in mind. Then one has to be choosy in their choice. However, the movies, barring the song and dance sequence, always fall back on the family values of Indian culture.
What might have impressed some people of west may be the emphasis on the family values. Besides, music is better. These days Indians too make films in English with lots of responsibilities.
As far as, TV concerned, most kids watch commercial ads than actual serials. In addition, they too have good cartoon network. The access to foreign networks is limited and few channels, adapted to Indian values are allowed to be aired by the government. Most of the programme you mentioned is not available on air in India.
The most popular among English channels are Star network and movie channels like Star movies, HBO. Movies are normally selected with care for viewers in the prime time. So, no problem.
The western influence is mostly limited to the change in the lifestyle of food habits, kind of music kids want to listen and to some extent, the way they want to dress.
As a responsible parent I don't allow my cubs to watch tv when they've been drinking....bad for the judgement....
LOL Polar,... If you allow your 13 year old daughter to smoke at the dinner table... in front of her children... you might be a redneck.
'Redneck?' How Un-PC! We call them 'liberally-minded', now...
dròm_et_rêve
I understand your concerns. Even more upsetting is very young children's exposure to pornography via the internet, etc. A recent report here in Australia reported an alarming increase in inappropriate sexual behavior in children under 10. Very sad & worrying.
msolga, we have content screeners on all our computers...porn can't get in.....easy.
Bi-Polar Bear
That's good, Bear ..... It's pretty frightening stuff!
As a teacher, it constantly astonishes me what my students are regularly watching. They have often been exposed to far more explicit stuff (video, internet ..) than the many of the adults around them. I don't think I'm a prude & have constantly argued that censureship is wrong ... BUT this stuff really worries me!
Quote:Crazy-making as it may be, parents do use the One Eyed Monster as The Complete Babysitter.
It took me a minute to figure out what one-eyed monster this referred to...
Seems to me the worst damage TV can inflict is the lost opportunity to be doing something else (like, you know, surfing the web...).
drom_et_reve
drom_et_reve
Having re-read this thread I've come across a sentence that troubles me. There appears to be a pretty serious contradiction in your words.
dròm_et_rêve wrote: In fact, apart from the objectification of women (which I deplore with all my soul), anti-increasing-censorship is one of the causes that I vehemently back. I'm in NO way suggesting that the state should increase censorship.
Does this mean that you do approve of censorship for the purpose of reducing "the objectification of women"? Since I happen to like looking at pretty women I don't share your objection. However; I believe I can draw a parallel. All my life I believed burning of the US Flag to be an act of treason. Then I saw a corny movie called the American President in which the presidents girlfriend had been involved in a flag burning rally years earlier. The fictional president defended her action with something like this: "If you want to believe you are in a free country then the symbol of that freedom can not just be a flag, but also a person enjoying their right to burn that flag in protest. If you truly want freedom of speech than first you'd better prepare your self to acknowledge a man, standing center stage, advocating at the top of his lunges that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Ackknowledge
that!, celebrate
that in your classrooms and then you can stand up and sing about the land of the
free... and how great it is." After hearing this fictional president's speech: I never again allowed my personal values to trump anyone else's freedom of expression. I don't surf for porn, but support no action to regulate it at the source. I didn't like "Too Live Crew's" music, but would fight any attempt to ban it. I don't believe their is anything more ridiculous than the annual Ku Klux Klan's march on Washington, but now understand why it needs to be protected. The fact that it is; is the very reason I don't have to fear persecution for what I am writing right now. Do you see what I mean?
I know what you mean Dog...I'm a pretty liberal guy but I've never offered the one eyed monster as a babysitter......that just wouldn't be right.....
My take on this is that if parents talk enough to their kids about relationships and sex then they know that what they see on tv or the internet is not how they should behave in real life. I don't stop my son from watching anything on tv or limit his access on the internet because we have always talked about the right and wrongs in life and he knows the difference. We have talked about the difference between sex and making love, so if he sees porn he knows that this is not the way he treats a woman. In any case, I think if parents take the time to constantly talk with their kids about these things, then they know that what they find on tv and the internet is simply entertainment and nothing more. My sons values and morals are very well intact, so obviously the tv and internet hasn't had this effect on him. Unfortunately, not all parents think to cover those bases and the sex ed in school is bogus because they don't cover the relationship part of it, which is the most important part of making love.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace