www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Study links sexual content on TV to teen pregnancy

Has anyone seen this article in CNN.com?

Study links sexual content on TV to teen pregnancy - CNN.com [cnn.com]


"Twice as likely"--some statisticians make a big deal over a difference of just a few percentage points, but here we're talking about a difference of 100%, and people act as though it's just an opinion.

In fact, the most interesting (and scariest) part is the comments that follow. If it weren't already clear enough that public schools don't teach people to think logically, this is a perfect example.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

As Mark Shea wrote "Water Found to be Wet!"

Maybe Gov. Palin and her daughter shouldn't have watched so much tv then.

Tasteless.

I'm not a fan of Governor Palin by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, she killed any chance that I would vote for McCain), but I agree that the comment was tasteless. I myself was conceived out of wedlock and I always find such remarks to be offensive.

Ryan

With such a strong statistical link some people can miss the fact that the sins committed were willful. I have heard some people speak as though without TV teens wouldn't know what sex was.

Looking at the shows I've glanced at as an amateur writer, I cannot help but be dismayed at the quality of the stories which appear on TV. I am happy to watch old episodes of The Adventures of Robin Hood with Richard Greene. That is what I call good story telling.

Terry

I have to wonder about studies like this. They seem to leave the impression that this sort of thing has only begun with television and the 1960s.

I have, in my family tree, two instances of premarital sex that lead to pregnancy. One happened prior to radio. The interesting thing is the way people handled it in those bygone years.

First of all, there were many more hurried marriages. And there were "back-dated" marriages. (One member of the family found out when both his parents had died that their wedding date was actually one year less than he'd thought. And his birthday was four months after their wedding, not 16.) People thought that the stable environment for a child should be a family with mother and father. Though this sometimes meant a lifetime of anger and abuse, it was not always the case.

Then there was the custom of women who were "with child" staying home and indoors. (One family member learned much later that his "aunt" was actually his mother who'd given him to a married sister to raise and then moved to another state.)

It seems to me to come down to what Gov. Palin and her family have done. The deed is done. The decision then becomes to support the mother and her pregnancy. If marriage is in the plan, then support the couple. This isn't an endorsement of the sin involved, but an act of mercy that God asks of us as His servants. Parents may be disappointed, but so is God, Our Father, often disappointed with us.

And isn't this what He asks of us? To be like Him in our dealings with others?

I haven't had to face this as a parent--yet; still have one to be married. But I'm convinced that we have the Christian duty to support each other, even in the failures that disappoint us. That doesn't mean we support the behavior, but recognize that people fall. Like the Good Samaritan, we pick them up.

In Christ,

BOB

I agree with Ryan. This comment was unwarranted, uncharitable and tasteless. It is suited more for the unmoderated anything goes type of 'comments' one see under online news stories than this forum. In the future any such comments will be deleted.

Alice, Moderator

Terry,

If I tempt someone into sin, that person is certainly guilty of the sin, but the fact remains that he/she would probably not have committed that particular sin if I had not come along.

So I don't get your point--are you saying that a strong statistical link is meaningless?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Bob,

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. First of all, it's no secret that the rates of teenage pregnancy (and early sexual activity in general) are significantly higher than they were 40 years ago, at the beginning of the so-called "sexual revolution." Besides that, the study is only comparing the rates of pregnancy among teens who watch a lot of TV with those of teens who watch less.

This is a good example of why statistics are vital for making intelligent judgments--how much more, how much less, etc. Otherwise, we judge by appearances ...

"So I don't get your point--are you saying that a strong statistical link is meaningless?"

Deacon Richard,

No, TV may very well lead to the softening or a confusion of the will. I think that is what this study shows. I was reacting against the opinion that TV would be the "cause" and sex is the "effect". I don't believe that the type of statistical analysis was aiming to prove causality.

Terry

Dear Deacon Richard,

I giggle sometimes about how the most obvious things have to be proven by scientific studies..Not to sound like a teenager myself, but when I read such studies, I just want to say "well, DUH!!!"

Anyone who has watched any television for atleast the past fifteen years will know that everyone is having sex as naturally as if they are eating...and what is even more dangerous is that there are never any consequences to this 'fun'-- no pregnancy and no STD's.

Television has always been considered, subconsciously, if not consciously, as a window of how we are and how we are supposed to be. It served us well to that end in the fifties and early sixties only...

What it is now is a tool of indoctrination of Hollywood's moral, family and societal values.

In Christ,
Alice