Few masses would doubt that sexual practice is omnipresent in sensitive – whether movies , telecasting , music or book of account – and that teenager today have unprecedented access to all of it . It ’s often taken for allow that this soft access to “ aphrodisiacal media ” has an influence on teen sexuality .
Specifically , the worry is that teens may have sexual urge before or engage inhigher - risksexual activities such as having multiple partners or exposing themselves to likely maternity or Doctor of Sacred Theology . In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics even bring out aposition paperclaiming that sexually expressed media could promote speculative teen sexual behavior .
But politics datum find that stripling are actually hold off longer than in the preceding tohave sexual activity . Andteen pregnancy ratesare at historic first . How is it possible that sexy media has such a pernicious result even as teen sex is becoming healthier ?
Ezume Images/Shutterstock
I ’ve spend more than a decennary research how media – like video game or ad – influence young behavior . What fascinates me is how companionship interacts with media , often adopt lubricious depicted object while at the same time blaming it for social problems , whether real or imagined .
So my colleagues and I decided to look at the research on aphrodisiac media and teenage intimate behavior to see how the strong the link between the two is .
Sexy media doesn’t predict sexual behavior
Despite the vulgar assumptions about sex in the media and its alleged effect on adolescent , the evidence behind the radio link is weak . Some studies discover evidence for a modest upshot ( perhaps in some circumstance but not others ) , while others discover no evidence for any effect .
" We ca n’t run experiments where teens watch different TV shows and we hold off around to see who has sex . "
One reason the evidence may not be conclusive is that there are hardheaded and ethical limitations to conducting enquiry . We ca n’t run experiments where teens see different boob tube shows and we await around to see who has sex . This think research often rely on ego - reported data . What we do is need adolescent to account on their intimate demeanour and their media preference , as well as other variables we might like to control for ( such as personality or family environment ) and see if correlations survive .
With this in mind , my colleague Patrick Markey at Villanova and Danish researcher Rune Nielsen and I conducted a meta - analysis of 22 studies with over 22,000 player that examine the correlation between sexy media and teenaged sexual demeanor . A meta - analytic thinking lets us look for commons in the result , and is something that had not been done antecedently with this pool of enquiry .
All of the studies in the meta - psychoanalysis looked at depictions of intimate situation , nakedness , fond nudity or explicit discourse of sex in television shows or movies well accessible to tiddler ( and thus turf out pornography).In peculiar , we were peculiar to see whether aphrodisiacal medium predicted teenaged sexual behavior once other variable quantity had been controlled . For representative , maybe boys tend to watch sexy media and also are more sexually risk - pickings . Or perhaps early days who are more free in term of personality are more open both to sexy medium and earlier intimate creation . Perhaps a hard family scope is the underlie key to understanding any correlation between medium use habits and actual sexual behavior .
Ultimately , this is what we obtain . Once other broker such as family line surroundings , personality or even gender were control , sexy media exposure did not meaningfully correlate with teenaged intimate behavior .
Contrary to common fears , sexy medium does n’t seem to have any pragmatic meaning for when teens first have sex or start other sexual behaviors . This deficiency of correlation coefficient is a warning sign we might be on the ill-timed track in seek to blame media for teen sexual risk - pickings .
Why doesn’t media influence teens?
There are numerous theories that discuss how individuals and media interact . However , many older media effects possibility did n’t consider why people were drawn to media , how they processed it , or what they hoped to get from it . Such theory assumed viewers simply irrationally and purposelessly imitated what they see . Most of the paper we analyze in our meta - analysis were tests of these basic , automatic , media effect hypothesis .
In the preceding few age , some student ( myself include ) have specifically call up for the retirement of these older media effects theories . This is because the grounds increasingly suggests that fictional medium such as feature picture show or sitcoms medium is too remote to have a clear shock on consumers ' behavior , especially compared to kinsfolk and match .
" Emerging evidence suggests that unseasoned children process fictional mass medium otherwise from real events . "
In addition , emerging evidence suggests that young nestling serve fabricated culture medium differently from real issue . If small children are able-bodied to litigate a conflict between fictional upshot and real events , we can assume that teens do n’t really look medium to reflect reality .
Our resolution regarding the limited encroachment of medium also fit with the observations from societal data . Despite a overplus of intimate media available to teens , a crisis of risky adolescent sexual behavior has not emerge .
We watch what we’re interested in watching
Newer models of media use suggest that it is the individuals who consume media , not the medium itself , who are the repel agents of behavior . Evidence propose that users seek out and read media according to what they want to get from it , rather than passively imitate it .
the great unwashed do n’t generally unintentionally watch media , intimate or otherwise , but are motivated to do so because of preexisting desire .
For illustration , some late studies have indicated that youth seek out medium that fit with preexisting motivation , called a selection effect , but that media do n’t necessarily lead to further problem behaviors . For model , inquiry suggests that some teens who are already aggressive might be interested in trigger-happy television plot , but play such games does n’t make kids more aggressive .
That ’s a head that sometimes seems disregard when we talk about teens and sexuality . interest group in sex is a largely biologically motivated process ; fictional medium really is n’t command . Teens will become interested in sexuality all on their own .
Parents have more influence than the media
parent can rest a bite sluttish since the evidence intimate that mass medium is n’t a primary driver of teenager gender .
To the extent media has any impact at all , it is likely only in a vacuum left by grownup loath to lecture to kids about sex , especially the clobber kids really want to cognise .
How do you ask someone out on a date and how do you do by it if they say no ? What does sex feel like ? When is it OK to have sexuality ? What are the risks and how do you invalidate them ? In the nerve of patient , empathic and informatory discussions about sex by adults kids trust , the metier likely has short influence .
Ultimately , whether culture medium have salacious or more conscientious portrayals of gender , we should not expect media to supervene upon conversations with youth by parent , shielder and pedagog .
I ’m not suggest everyone go out and buy50 Shades of Greyfor their teen , but if teens happen to come across it ( and they will ) , it ’s not the goal of the existence .
The important thing for parents is to talk to their kids .
Sign up herefor our casual Thrillist email , and get your localisation of the good in food / drink / sport .
