A scene from The CW Network’s “Gossip Girl.” (Giovanni Rufino/The CW)A new study making headlines today suggests teenage girls and boys who watch a lot of steamy television are more likely to become pregnant or cause a pregnancy.
But a closer look at the data shows the relationship between television, sexual content and teen pregnancies is complex. The same study, published today in Pediatrics, also found that teens who watch a lot of television in general are less likely to become pregnant.
How can that be? The answer may be that kids who watch a lot of television obviously aren’t out dating and socializing with friends. So as unhealthy as it may be to spend hours in front of a screen, the behavior appears to be oddly protective against teen pregnancy.
The link between television and teen pregnancy only shows up when a high proportion of the television shows watched by a teen are filled with sexual content. When most of the television a teen watches is sexual in nature, risk for teen pregnancy doubles compared to kids who watch little or no sexually-themed television.
The study only shows an association between steamy TV and teen pregnancy, which means some other factor may be influencing the data. It could be that shows like “Gossip Girl” and “Degrassi High,” with their depictions of casual, consequence-free sex, prompt sexually active teens to have more partners or to be less careful about birth control. Or it may be that kids prone to risky or problem behavior also are more attracted to shows with high sexual content.
While the answer isn’t clear, the study findings do suggest that parents should be aware of what kids are watching on television and be ready to offer an alternate viewpoint.
“If the type of sexual portrayals that teens see on TV are the only messages they’re getting about sex, then they’re likely to approach sexual relationships in a way that might not be the healthiest way,” said Steven Martino, study co-author and a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation, the nonprofit health care research firm that conducted the study. “It’s important to talk to them about that and see how they’re reacting, and offer other perspectives to them about sex that they might not be getting on television.”
Healthy living doesn't happen at the doctor's office. The road to better health is paved with the small decisions we make every day. It's about the choices we make when we buy groceries, drive our cars and hang out with our kids. Join columnist Tara Parker-Pope as she sifts through medical research and expert opinions for practical advice to help readers take control of their health and live well every day. You can reach Ms. Parker-Pope at 
The easiest and most pleasurable way to eat well is to cook. Recipes for Health offers recipes with an eye towards empowering you to cook healthy meals every day. 
From 1 to 25 of 50 Comments
Every kid thinks everybody else is more experienced and they have to keep up. Sex is a rite of maturity like getting drunk.
A friend from Finland told the national board of health had mailed her a condom, as to all high schoolers. So’s she could acquaint herself with the thing in no hurry and know what she was doing when the time came.
It sounded like not enough on its own. I asked if it did not come with some kind of — but apparently not!
— SusannaThe study suffers from so many problems that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, the study does not, indeed cannot, show that watching sexual content on TV leads to teen pregnancy. The study only looks at whether there is a correlation between sexual content of TV viewing and subsequent teen pregnancy. As anyone who has studied statistics knows, correlation is not the same thing as causation. Two independent events might appear to be correlated, but that does not mean that one caused the other.
Even if the authors had shown a causal relationship between viewing sexual content on television and teen pregnancy, that would not tell us which was cause and which was effect. The authors claimed that viewing sexual content led to pregnancy, but it is equally likely being sexually active led teenagers to prefer sexual content compared to their sexually abstinent peer.
The study suffers from major technical problems. The study was based telephone interviews of teenagers and relied solely on their honesty, accuracy and recall; teenagers are not noted for their honesty, accuracy and recall. Three separate interviews were conducted at predetermined intervals over 3 years. More than 1/4 of the participants dropped out of the study, and the authors simply ignored them. However, those who dropped out of the study might have differed in significant ways from those who remained in the study, and their absence may have led to erroneous findings.
Of the 1461 teens who remained in the study, 146 (fully 10%) refused to divulge whether they were sexually active. The authors simply ignored them. Of the remaining 1315 teens, 571 (43%, or almost half) were not sexually active at all. The authors simply ignored them, too. That is a very bizarre way to handle the data. At a minimum, the 571 teens who were not sexually active should have served as a control group for the sexually active group. How much sexual content did the abstinent teenagers watch? Was it the same amount as the sexually active teenagers? We don’t know, although the authors do know and chose to keep that information to themselves.
In the end, the authors looked at the television viewing habits of those teens who did not drop out of the study, were willing to divulge their sexual status, and claimed that they were sexually active. After eliminating those who refused to divulge whether or not they had been involved in a pregnancy, only 718 teens were left of an initial group of 2003 that had started the study. In other words, the authors only looked at 36% of study participants (all of whom were sexually active) and ignored the other 64% (including everyone who was not sexually active).
By deliberately excluding teens who were not sexually active, the authors severely damaged the credibility of their study. Unless they could show that abstinent teens were much less likely to watch sexual content on television, they cannot claim any relationship between television viewing and teen pregnancy. The fact that the authors deliberately left this data out of their study strongly suggests that it does not show that abstinent teens watch less sexual content on television. Indeed, I would not be surprised to find that the authors set out to investigate a connection between watching sexual content and likelihood of sexual activity, but found that there was no relationship at all. Instead, they were reduced to concocting a spurious relationship between sexual content on television and the likelihood of pregnancy among teens who were already sexually active.
Does watching sexual content on television lead to teen pregnancy? We don’t know, and this study certainly does not tell us.
FROM TPP — The RAND researchers have posted a response to this comment in comment #29. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
— Amy Tuteur, MDOne of the mechanisms at work may be emulation of the attractive-looking characters on one’s favorite TV show. This may occur at an unconscious level.
I wonder also about socio-economic data and its correlation to these results. From the abstract, it seems that adjustments were made for such differences. My casual observation of teen society is that those teen-agers with fewer opportunities to become career professionals tend to find significance in having children, often out of wedlock.
One of the easiest routes for a young woman to find meaning in her life is by becoming a mother. But these same women often don’t know that doing so outside of a stable relationship is one of the fastest ways to a life of hardship and poverty. Jamie Lynn Spears will not have this problem, but many of the young girls who idolize her will.
— Rob L, N Myrtle Beach SCAmy Tuteur gives an excellent analysis of the study. All I want to add is that “Degrassi” should not be used as an example of casual, consequence-free sex. Since it began as The Kids of Degrassi Street, then Degrassi Junior High, Degrassi High and the recent “Next Generation,” the series has been a model for portraying that all actions have consequences — not just sexual activity, and not just negative actions. Words hurt, fights leave scars, and standing up for others promotes friendship.
No show has ever made a longer term commitment to showing the consequences of sex. On “Degrassi Junior High,” the character Spike finds out she’s pregnant and decides to keep the baby. A decade and a half later, the actress who played Spike returned to “The Next Generation” to reprise the role, as the mother of now-teenage Emma. Late in that series, Emma has a pregnancy scare, and Spike counsels her through it.
FROM TPP — Thanks for the input but I have to say as a parent, I’m horrified when DeGrassi promos show up. It’s gotten very sexually charged of late, in my opinion.
— KidvidkidPerhaps the teenagers who are watching these programs with sexual content are watching with their sweethearts. They start kissing and touching and caressing, like the characters, and voila! Teen pregnancy! The program content doesn’t cause the sexual activity that leads to pregnancy. But It sure can get a teenager horny while watching it. Keep the television in a common area and if your kids are watching “Sex and the City” make sure their boyfriends or girlfriends are sitting alone in a chair and not on the sofa!
FROM TPP — I just can’t imagine letting my teen daughter watch Sex and the City at all.
— Tara HowardThis study was clearly politically motivated and bad science. The authors are also being secretive about how they determined a program was sexual.
Of course, this would occur in the waning days of the anti-science Bush Administration.
All previous studies show that the only effective way of preventing teen pregnancy is sex education and properly used contraceptives.
— SimonI had lots of talks this summer with my 13 year old daughter about the concept of “desensitization.” The basic idea, which she finally was able to understand, was that one’s resistance to an objectionable concept is progressively eroded by constant exposure. From my values, physical sexual activity for junior high school kids is always wrong (I cannot imagine who would disagree with that statement, nor why), and I have communicated this believe to my daughter. However, if our kids are constantly exposed to a culture that undermines that belief, it becomes harder to resist temptation and pressure. To that extent, these sexually charged shows give a kid the impression that the conduct displayed is a part of “normal” behavior, so the TV shows become a surrogate for the culture and environment.
I don’t want my daughter to undergo this kind of desensitization, nor to have our values undermined. That is why, in my home, lots of shows are simply off limits, and others only can be watched with me, and processed afterwards. In the study reported, I wonder what the impact would have been for a question like “How much do your parents discuss the shows you watch with you?”
Personally, I think we should always know what our kids are watching, and try to point them toward the better shows.
— DennisWhen women were “old maids” at 20, when do you think they were getting married and having sex? At 25? Interestingly enough, the average age across most advanced western societies falls at 17-18 years old. The issue is that rather than treating the teenage years as moving into adulthood, with practice at relationships under the guidance of parents, family, etc., it is treated as the age of “you’re too young to even start to grow up”. Parents start teaching their kids to drive and having them practice when they are teenagers, so they have some guidance, but are uncomfortable with the idea that their child might be growing up sexually, so don’t guide them, don’t teach them anything, and throw them to the wolves when they do start to be in relationships - then bemoan teenage sexuality since often the relationships are bad (since teenagers can only go to other teens for advice since kids aren’t supposed to be having sex) and get pregnant (since their parents think teaching them about safe sex causes pregnancy - no, not teaching about it causes preganancy. Most teens can figure out the mechanics of sex).
Personally, by the time I was 17 (and finally having sex) I had been physically “mature” for six years and had been dating someone for two and a half! That’s waiting at least two years longer (if that!) than most adults do to have sex when in a relationship! And I still got the ‘you should wait until you’re old’ lecture. I was on two forms of birth control (which is more careful than most adults) and had discussed this with my partner about what it might mean, etc.. It was a great experience, even though our relationship ended two years later. I chose to wait, I chose to have sex, and I chose to be careful about it. My parents weren’t pleased, but at some point, it does become the teen’s choice - teach them well and it may be later in life, but please be realistic! And don’t expect them to have their first relationship at 25, as some parents might like!
— TessHI am so glad Dr. Tuteur took the time to post such a thorough and thoughtful comment. And that (for once) TPP took the time to listen to it.
— SOf course, complicating the situation is the fact that a relatioship between variables does not necessarily suggest causality — the cause and effect fallacy.
This topic, I am sure is quite involved and there are no simple answers.
I know one aspect: we live in a highly sexualized environment. [And, MTV must be involved.]
— David Chowes, New York CityAcutally, pick up a copy of last week’s New Yorker. In it is a great article called “Red Sex, Blue Sex.” The article is quite clear about how TV has a much lighter influence over the choices that young people make about sex in their teens than does their religious and ethical upbringing. Sexual ads and media in general targets young people with sexual images from every angle ( no pun intended). You have to look at socio-economics, education, parental involvement, etc. BTW…there are more teen pregnancies and higher divorce rates in the red states, particularly with evangelical families and girls who have sworn to abstinance. Kids in the blue states tend to hold off longer, get college educations, and are married before embarking on having children. Marriages are more successful here, too. Shocking, eh? We’re the ones who are supposedly amoral.
As for Gossip Girl. I watch it with my 16 year old. It’s hilarious. It’s sooo outrageous that it’s comical. We sit here and laugh. Most of the time, they’re not having sex at all, in fact, most of the time the kids of these whacked out, affluent upper east siders are trying to stay afloat…trying to find their way. The show tries to sell itself as steamy, but it’s anything but that. Yes, it alludes to sexual content and the kids are getting to do way more than any Manhattan club would ever let them do, but in the end, nothing much goes on, and in fact, they often end up coming to realize some important lessons. I have to say both the writing and acting are horrible, but still we watch it…like junk food. What’s great is that my teenager can recognize it for what it is.
Here’s the rub, though, it’s about parent involvement in your child’s life. Conversations about what’s going on around them. Engage your kids from the time they are around 11 or 12 about all the messages that are being thrown at them.
— JenThe problem, as always, with these studies is that while they may show correlation, they do not necessarily show cause. It is difficult to control for factors such as what are the core values of kids watching these shows? Those of their parents? Is their TV watching monitored in any kind of way? What is the cultural norm? etc.
— KayJust want to add to the excellent comment about the problems with the study and the real inability to draw any substantive conclusion from it. The model underlying all of our assumptions is that people will imitate what they see (on TV or anywhere else, YouTube, MySpace, their neighbors). This is only part of the story; the rest is that we have to see people who look like us (wonder why soap opera actors get younger), act in ways we think we can, and receive positive benefits for doing it (people who call for more sexual activity portrayed on TV and in movies to have negative consequences are also on the right track). Then, of course, they have to have the opportunities and motivation to want to do what they see.
— CraigWhile the Pediatrics article certainly titillates, it does little to shed light on why teens do what they do.
For all you who read this article, don’t forget that this is a correlational study, and therefore may not necessarily demonstrate that watching more provocative television CAUSES teens to be more sexually active. It is just as possible that simply by virtue of being a teenager who is already sexually active, that he/she is more likely to seek out television shows that he/she can relate to more…which happen to contain quite a bit of sexual content. It is also likely that there are many other factors intertwined into this entire complex relationship. When teens have information, regardless of what television shows they watch, they are in a better place to make well-thought-out decisions that are best for them in terms of their sexuality. It’s kind of like violent television. Just because we watch violence, does not mean we go out and commit crimes…and the more we are informed about right and wrong and socially appropriate actions, the more likely we are to make mature informed decisions!
— RachelAnd women were HOW old in Elizabethan England when they got preggy? Musta been those crazy, sexy, violent Shakespeare plays ‘n’ stuff… you know- guys in dresses and all.
— PJWHEN are we going to see some RESPONSIBILITY in REPORTAGE in regards to Science???? Dr. Amy Tuteur, MD’s comments, which appear here, should have been solicited beforehand. Time and again, second rate slap-dash reportage contributes to the confusion about the most basic of scientific issues including, but not limited to, evolution; genetics; cosmology; biology; psychology; social “science”, etc…
Granted, the general public can barely add and subtract, but the notion that publishing a misleading (by omission)article is a public service or is fostering the “debate” is a bunch of horsepuckey!
Call me Fred Unfriendly, but y’all should be slapped with a Reporter’s Notebook. Don’t let it happen again.
The shows used when the study started to be conducted several years ago were pretty tame by “Gossip Girl” standards: “Sex in the City”, “Friends” and “That 70’s Show.” The first two allude heavily to sex, but have characters who are 30-somethings. The last portrays an imaginative universe from three decades ago. It would be interesting to reconduct the study among current watchers of “Gossip Girl” and the other teen shows on the tawdry CW network. Obviously “Sex in the City” was the template for the latter, a show that started on cable and made its way to television in a censored version. A revamped study should be more robust sociologically and study other attitudes instilled in teenagers by this new line of shows. As far as supposed harmlessness of such programming, I’m reminded of some words written several decades ago by T. W. Adorno on the culture industry:
“Whoever ignores its influence out of skepticism for what it stuffs into people would be naive… People are not only, as the saying goes, falling for the swindle; if it guarantees them even the most fleeting gratification they desire a deception which is nonetheless transparent to them. They force their eyes shut and voice approval, in a kind of self-loathing, for what it meted out to them, knowing fully the purpose for which it is manufactured. Without admitting it they sense that their lives would be completely intolerable as soon as they no longer clung to satisfactions which are none at all.”
— TomA recent Dutch study showed that pornography increased impulsive behavior in eating and spending money but only when the males viewing the pornography were told that they had below average incomes.
This suggest that our inbuilt status mechanism may alter our behavior based on our self-perception of status in our community and the larger society. In true, a lot of the oddness we see in studies on sexual media input may arise because the same media has a different influence depending on the social status (or other factors) of person viewing it.
So if we control only for exposure to sexual media we might not see any effect but if we control for sexual media plus other factors, we may see one.
— Shannon LoveOnly an idiot would deny the causality — so leave it to the NYT to do so.
I dare any parent to sit through 4 or 5 episodes of Sex and the City with their 14 year old daughter and tell me they are perfectly comfortable with it, that the messages that are coming across to their daughter are the ones she should set her moral compass by.
You learn what you see.
— JohnAny research that shows a correlation between a major social problem (teen pregnancy) and any other factor deserves our attention. Good scientists don’t allow any single study to dominate their thinking, though–even the most perfect studies have to be replicated before they form the foundation of a theory.
In this case, we’ve got an intriguing study that (a) deserves to be repeated and (b) deserves to be refined. One big problem, of course, is that we’re studying the private actions of minor children. We generally can’t conduct experimental research on adults, ethically–so any research on kids includes its share of ethical nightmares.
Another problem is that this is research in a particularly sensitive spot–the intersection of human sexuality and freedom of the press. It’s a place where science can hardly help to be politicized. Most of us have taken personal positions on the issues involved here long before we read any of the scientific findings… and few of us are really objective enough to know how to discount those personal opinions.
A third problem follows from the second–there’s plenty of money ready to flow to a researcher who will find the “right” answer. The entertainment industry is sensitive about any suggestion that their products actually affect human behavior. The right is always looking for research that supports any common-sense, traditional position. That means we can expect follow-up studies that are badly designed (since they are results-oriented rather than truth-seeking) and quickly countered (by equally dubious findings from the other side). Given the “he-said-she-said” nature of our political discourse, it may not even matter whether the research is equally bad on both sides of the political chasm–the fact that it’s political may kill the issue.
It all adds up to a preliminary scientific finding that can easily be strangled by American politics.
If anybody bothered reading to the bottom of a post this long, it points to a bigger problem we have as a people. There’s a lot of good science we can’t do anymore because we’re too ready to question each others’ motives instead of learning from each others’ discoveries. May God help us all find a way to become better citizens, better scientists, and better people as we listen to each other instead of shouting past each other.
— Scott SomervilleI am a female writer publishing stories directed at young women. I am in my forties. To research these stories, I read blogs and other internet communities directed at teens. What I see is that teens are far more knowledgeable about the specifics of sex than I was at that age (my theft of my mother’s “The Happy Hooker” and Cosmos seem quaint by comparison). For young women now, there is certainly a sense that sex is a pleasurable, normal activity, not something evil and heinous that you are trying to prevent your boyfriend from doing (and you are no longer a slut if you have hormonal urges regarding your loving boyfriend). That’s not entirely a bad development; I don’t think anyone benefits from saying that sex is evil. (Note: I am not advocating teen sex; I’m saying that healthy sexual development in *adults* is desirable. I hope everyone agrees that consensual, loving sex between adults is a good thing.)
What surprises me is the glorification of pregnancy among this age group. They watch celebrity pregnancies with alacrity, for instance (I can’t remember ever being aware at that age which film star was preggers). So many girls seem to have a fantasy about getting pregnant that I just don’t understand. Note that I’m coming from an ERA sensibility: at that age, I was shouting “take back the night” and “equal pay for equal work”. The current popular fantasy usually includes the male partner stepping up and proposing, and the two live happily ever after. The reality of how life changes after pregnancy, especially after an unplanned pregnancy, is usually not addressed. (Well, except in the movie “Juno”, itself remarkable in its popularity.) It’s completely foreign to me; I’m not anti-children by any means, but when I was a teen, motherhood was very far from my consciousness. Perhaps this says more about female teens expressing a desire to integrate career and family in a way that was somewhat ridiculed as non-feminist when I was that age. (Isn’t that interestingly quite a conservative view–that family and children are equally important as one’s career?) Maybe that perspective would be worth considering; how different that is from my generation’s experience–when it really was a *choice*–you either had a career or became a mommy.
And then there are vampires…which seem to be the new safe way to express sexual desire. (Vampires are everywhere now, have you noticed?) Again, an unrealistic idealized obsession, but we are talking about teenagers here. You can’t expect them to have adult attitudes about sex.
That being said, my impression from reading between the lines is that the majority of teens aren’t really having more sex than my contemporaries did at that age. Most are still hesitant and uncertain, as they should be, and taking their time growing up and figuring themselves out. They are, however, more willing to talk about their experiences because of the anonymizing factor of the internet, and they actively seek out entertainment that is not sanitized (they feel like adults, and seek what they see as adult entertainment, pretty much the norm for most generations). They also talk explicitly about birth control and STDs. You have to remember, like every teenaged generation, they believe that their elders are hopelessly out of touch and can’t possibly understand what they are going through.
In my admittedly non-professional opinion, I would say that teaching ‘abstinence only’ is responsible for more teen pregnancies than any other factor, and that ultimately trying to blame patently ridiculous TV shows for teen sexuality in an internet world is a case of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. (I’m sure this comment will receive replies that “OMG the immoral internet causes teen pregnancy.”) And probably most importantly–unless someone invents a pill for it–teens have raging hormones along with still-developing brains, and they always will.
— - - -If you want proof that we are allowing TV and corporations to turn our kids into commodities and the influence it has on them - read a great book by child psychologist Susan Linn “Consuming Kids” . Yes as a parent (and I am one - of a preteen) we can do our best to turn off the TV, but are kids are constantly bombarded by images of violence and sex everywhere we turn. There are far more studies in her book linking sex & media to teenage behavior. We need to hold our media responsible for their marketing and messages as much as we need parents to be held responsible in their roles.
— VictoriaIn the last decade, the places to see sexually suggestive or explicit content have multiplied exponentially. And teen pregnancy has gone down. So if there’s any causal relationship between sexually oriented programming and teen pregnancy, obviously the solution is to have more smut so as to bring the pregnancy rate down even further.
— PerspectiveIf suggestive material on tv is responsible for increased incidents of teen age pregnancy, why is that European teen agers, exposed to full frontal nudity on tv, topless and naked sunbathing and swimming at the beaches and parks, don’t experience more teenage pregnancy than America? Maybe it’s our Puritan culture and what they don’t experience that fails to prepare them for adulthood.
— RicRic #23, European teenagers aren’t taught abstinence, they are informed about contraception. On the other hand, there are Catholic countries where abortion is illegal. The women of Malta go have abortions in Tunisia, where it is unrestricted.
— SusannaIn Québec, we have much more sex on broadcast tv( just try C.A. on Radio-Canada for those of you in northern VT or northeastern NY) and yet much less teenage pregnancies and abortions.
— Jacques René GiguèreWth apologies to Shakespeare, your destinies ,noble Americans, are not in your tv stars but in yourselves …