Would you and the other millions of viewers like you tune into the Sopranos every week if it wasn’t filled with boobs every time that Tony is in the strip club or is cheating on his wife? That is a good question, and one that should be asked but seldom is. When does “Sex on TV” go too far? How much sex is needed to make a drama or any show more interesting?
One of the most successful TV stations is HBO. Emmy upon Emmy is thrown at the station for its awesome shows of every genre. You’ve got the comedies like “Sex and the City” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” but you also have the best dramas on TV like “The Wire” and “The Sopranos.” But what is it that makes HBO so good? Is it the fact that if you sat down and watched it for an hour you’d see about 3 sets of melons? Or is it great storytelling? MadTV once did a bit on HBO’s slogan, “It’s not TV. It’s HBO on TV,” but changing it too “It’s not TV. It’s porn with Emmys.” That is a funny quote, but it brings up a good question. When do these subscription only cable stations cross the boundary into porn?
I would probably draw the line when the storytelling becomes sub-par. After all, if we wanted bad dialogues and terrible plot lines, we can just go get some actual porn. But instead, we (hopefully) are watching the shows on HBO, Showtime and Cinemax for their great plotlines, with a little bit of pleasure thrown in. But, I’ve been thinking about this. How do we know when the plot lines become bad, like porn? After all, the stations are not going to make a big leap towards bad plot lines. Instead, it will be a gradual switch going on as the company realizes more and more that people are just watching the stations for the sex scenes.
However, we are not there yet. And I can almost guarantee that. This is because these shows are being adapted to normal cable networks without the porno scenes, and they are still just as popular. Some could argue that “Sex and The City” got the Emmys before, but earned them now on their TBS spot. More and more people are tuning into the show now than before because they can relate to it more. NEWSWEEK said that now it is not a show based on sex, but four friends. Interesting take. Also, the Sopranos is now on A&E and got 4.4 million viewers in its first showing. And without boobs over Tony’s shoulder every five minutes! And, heck, I can watch the Sopranos without being afraid of my Mom walking in my room to tell me something and thinking that I’m watching porn. Always a positive.
But, as times are changing and the nation with it, the controversial issue of sex on TV is leaving the paid subscription stations and heading to network TV. Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode “The Contest,” where the four friends had a bet to see who could refrain from masturbating the longest. Even though no skin was shown during that episode, it was highly sexual in nature. And now we are even getting the skin, like in FX’s Nip/Tuck, where girls are flaunting their bodies in thongs and half-bras. FX has always been known as a cable-porno station, but young kids could be flipping through the stations and see stuff like this. One more network TV example: who has not seen the sex scene where they show the head of the bed banging against the wall? Such a cliché sex scene that has been shown on almost every TV show imaginable.
NEWSWEEK also detailed a new show on CBS called “SwingTown.” This is a show based on the sexual liberation that people felt during the 70s. It details a couple that invites their new neighbors over in the pilot, to have a swinger party. The show was originally written for HBO, but was refused because of “Big Love.” This is probably the first show (with “Sex and the City” not counting because it was made on HBO) that is completely centered around sex that is made for normal cable television. You can even watch CBS with an antenna. I don’t know if this is the right path that this country should take regarding sex on TV.
But I also believe that we shouldn’t rely on the FCC to determine what is and is not appropriate for us to view on TV. The problem lies within us and our moral system. We should not be sending this message to our kids that sex is OK to have with whomever you want, whenever you want. Look at “Friends.” Each member of the group (I don’t know about Phoebe) has had sex with another member and flaunts it. OK. Community sex. Sounds like a great moral lesson. The media shows us what we want to see, so let’s pick up the morals and stop these kinds of things. Thanks for reading and please comment/rate




I agree with you that Sex in the media has become atrociously common, but not only is it everywhere, it fuels unhealthy attitudes towards sex. Sex is not dirty, wrong, or shameful unless it's used in the wrong way. Like what you said about Tony cheating on his wife. If I'm right (I avoid those shows like the plague), it sounds like Tony is not having sex in a happy context, but rather to sooth his emotional turmoil.
I think that the tv shows should try to show healthy habits like using protection or show a constant one-night-stander in a negative light. If two of the characters are in a steady relationship, and the audience knows from previous episodes of the show that they're having safe sex, then I'd say 'sure, let'em go at it'. Or even if a character had unsafe sex and then freaked out about it( say sally suddenly notices that she'd forgotten to take birth control the next day D: ||| )
the best way to protest sex on TV however, is to not watch it. I watch Mike Roe and Mythbusters mostly.
____________
haHA!
Unfortunately, I can't afford cable.
And I agree that our society appears obsessed with sex, but in a totally unhealthy way. There's plenty of nudity on European television and media, but they don't have the same taboos about it, so sex sells less. They also have less violence on TV.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You are right. It's not the sex, persay, that is so wrong about our shows, but instead it is the context of the sex. I feel that in all the shows, promiscuity is the main purpose of sex, instead of showing your love and all that good stuff.
Tony is definitely the poster child for the bad sex portrayed in the media. And you got him right on.
But about the birth control thing that you said, I don't know if it would be healthy for a child to learn their first things about BC from Sally on the TV. But I'm old fashioned and I think parents should take the reins on that one
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
So you would rather that sex on TV show people demonstrating their love for each other without condoms? As long as they're really in love? I think that's irresponsible.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
No...you don't need to make contraception central to the show though. Why do you need to mention how they have sex on the show? I say just leave it out if you are going to have sex in the show at all.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
If you're going to have sex on a show, it is better to show them doing so without contraception? This is really the argument you want to make? I don't understand why you think this is better. I get that you think no sex on tv is ideal, but how is it better to show irresponsible sex than responsible sex?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
That's not what I'm talking about at all...and I don't get how you take that from my argument. I will not show them doing it without contraception in "my show" but instead I will just look past the issue and not mention it because the media is not the means that children should learn about contraception.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
You said, "I say just leave it out if you are going to have sex in the show at all." That means if there is sex on the show, contraception should be left out. The reasoning you give is "the media is not the means that children should learn about contraception." That sounds to me like you are saying that if there is sex on the show, it is better to show it without contraception. What am I not getting?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
By leave out I don't mean say that you should leave it out of the physical act of sex, I say you should take it out of the show and not mention whether or not you are using contraception.
For example, the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine chooses whether or not her date is spong-worthy is completely inappropriate for network TV because it deals with the contraception issue. You should not be discussing how you are having sex, if you need to have sex in the show at all.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
You were saying that showing them having sex on tv with no mention of contraception is preferable to showing them having sex on tv and approaching it responsibly, discussing the matter, using a condom, etc. And I say that is irresponsible. I know it is how sex is already shown on tv, but I think that attitude is part of the problem. It's too cavalier about sex. I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. I'm just flat out disagreeing with you.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You were misunderstanding, but now you're disagreeing...
But I completely think that is the most irresponsible idea possible in this situation. No matter how much you try, you will not be able to label contraception as cool. It will be seen as a necessity no matter what you do.
So let's not let Ray Barone teach our kids about how to do it safely...let's put it where it should be, in the hands of parents
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Parents should be teaching their kids about contraception, but I stand by my belief that it is irresponsible to portray only irresponsible sex on television. I also stand by my statement that I understood you perfectly well. My interpretation of your message was consistent throughout the discussion.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
No...your argument doesn't remain consistent because you are still misinterpreting my statement. I DON'T SAY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE IRRESPONSIBLE SEX ON TV. I'm saying that they don't say anything about using or not using contraceptives. I'm in no way saying that they should say that they aren't using condoms or anything, which is what you are making my argument sound like by twisting words and interpreting poorly.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032