In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics even published a position paper<\/a><\/strong> claiming that sexually explicit media could promote risky teen sexual behavior.<\/p>\n But government data find that teens are actually waiting longer than in the past to have sex<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n And teen pregnancy rates<\/a><\/strong> are at historic lows. How is it possible that sexy media has such a pernicious effect even as teen sexuality is becoming healthier?<\/p>\n I\u2019ve spent more than a decade researching how media \u2013 like video games or advertising \u2013 influences youth behavior.<\/p>\n What fascinates me is how society interacts with media, often embracing salacious content while simultaneously blaming it for societal problems, whether real or imagined.<\/p>\n So my colleagues and I decided to look at the research on sexy media and teenage sexual behavior to see how the strong the link between the two is.<\/p>\n Despite the common assumptions about sex in the media and its alleged effects on teens, the evidence behind the link is weak. Some studies find evidence for a small effect (perhaps in some circumstances but not others), while others find no evidence for any effect.<\/p>\n One reason the evidence may not be conclusive is that there are practical and ethical limitations to conducting research.<\/p>\n We can\u2019t run experiments where teens watch different TV shows and we wait around to see who has sex.<\/p>\n This means research often relies on self-reported data. What we do is ask teens to report on their sexual behavior and their media preferences, as well as other variables we might like to control for (such as personality or family environment) and see if correlations exist.<\/p>\n With this in mind, my colleagues Patrick Markey at Villanova and Danish researcher Rune Nielsen and I conducted a meta-analysis<\/a><\/strong> of 22 studies with over 22,000 participants that examine the correlation between sexy media and teenage sexual behavior.<\/p>\n A meta-analysis lets us look for commonalities in the results, and is something that had not been done previously with this pool of research.<\/p>\n All of the studies in the meta-analysis looked at depictions of sexual situations, nudity, partial nudity or explicit discussions of sex in television shows or movies easily accessible to minors (and thus excluded pornography).<\/p>\n In particular, we were curious to see whether sexy media predicted teen sexual behavior once other variables had been controlled.<\/p>\n For instance, maybe boys tend to watch sexier media and also are more sexually risk-taking. Or perhaps youth who are more liberal in terms of personality are more open both to sexy media and earlier sexual initiation.<\/p>\n Perhaps a difficult family background is the underlying key to understanding any correlation between media use habits and actual sexual behavior.<\/p>\n Ultimately, this is what we found. Once other factors such as family environment, personality or even gender were controlled, sexy media exposure did not meaningfully correlate with teen sexual behavior.<\/p>\n Contrary to common fears, sexy media doesn\u2019t seem to have any practical significance for when teens first have sex or start other sexual behaviors.<\/p>\n This lack of correlation is a warning sign we might be on the wrong track in trying to blame media for teen sexual risk-taking.<\/p>\n There are numerous theories that discuss how individuals and media interact.<\/p>\n However, many older media effects theories didn\u2019t consider why people were drawn to media, how they processed it, or what they hoped to get from it.<\/p>\n Such theories assumed viewers simply irrationally and purposelessly imitated what they saw. Most of the papers we examined in our meta-analysis were tests of these basic, automatic, media effects theories.<\/p>\n In the past few years, some scholars (myself included) have specifically called for the retirement<\/a><\/strong> of these older media<\/a><\/strong> effects theories.<\/p>\n This is because the evidence increasingly suggests that fictional media such as feature movies or sitcoms media is too remote to have a clear impact on consumers’ behavior, especially compared to families and peers.<\/p>\n In addition, emerging evidence suggests that young children process fictional<\/a><\/strong> media<\/a><\/strong> differently<\/a><\/strong> from real events.<\/p>\n If small children are able to process a difference between fictional events and real events, we can assume that teens don\u2019t really expect media to reflect reality.<\/p>\n Our results regarding the limited impact of media also fit with the observations from societal data.<\/p>\n Despite a plethora of sexual media available to teens, a crisis of risky teen sexual behavior has not emerged.<\/p>\n Newer models of media use suggest that it is the individuals who consume media, not the media itself, who are the driving agents of behavior<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Evidence suggests that users seek out and interpret media according to what they want to get from it, rather than passively imitating it.<\/p>\n People don\u2019t generally accidentally watch media, sexual or otherwise, but are motivated to do so because of preexisting desires<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n For instance, some recent<\/a><\/strong> studies<\/a><\/strong> have indicated that youth seek out media that fit with preexisting motives, called a selection effect, but that media don\u2019t necessarily lead to further problem behaviors.<\/p>\n For example, research suggests<\/a><\/strong> that some teens who are already aggressive might be interested in violent video games, but playing such games doesn\u2019t<\/a><\/strong> make kids more aggressive.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a point that sometimes seems ignored when we talk about teens and sex. Interest in sex is a largely biologically motivated process; fictional media really isn\u2019t required. Teens will become interested in sex all on their own.<\/p>\n Parents can rest a bit easier since the evidence suggests that media isn\u2019t a primary driver of teen sexuality.<\/p>\n To the extent media has any impact at all, it is likely only in a vacuum left by adults reluctant to talk to kids about sex, especially the stuff kids really want to know.<\/p>\n How do you ask someone out on a date and how do you handle it if they say no? What does sex feel like? When is it OK to have sex?<\/p>\n What are the risks and how do you avoid them? In the face of patient, empathic and informative discussions about sex by adults kids trust<\/a><\/strong>, the media likely has little influence.<\/p>\n Ultimately, whether media have salacious or more conscientious portrayals of sexuality, we should not expect media to replace conversations with youth by parents, guardians and educators.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not suggesting everyone run out and buy \u201c50 Shades of Grey\u201d for their teen, but if teens happen to come across it (and they will), it\u2019s not the end of the world.<\/p>\n The important thing for parents is to talk to their kids.<\/p>\n This article was originally published on The Conversation<\/a><\/strong>. Read the original article<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Incredible gaming and tech deals at Makro\u2019s Big Birthday Bash<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\nSexy media doesn\u2019t predict sexual behavior<\/h3>\n
![\"Teen\"](\"http:\/\/mygaming.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Teen.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhy doesn\u2019t media influence teens?<\/h3>\n
We watch what we\u2019re interested in watching<\/h3>\n
![\"Modern](\"http:\/\/mygaming.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Modern-Family.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nParents have more influence than the media<\/h3>\n
\nMore gaming news<\/h3>\n