The debate of whether there is too much sex on television has been widely discussed and researched over the past 15 years. An increasing number of conservatives believe there is too much sex on TV and that the growing depictions of sex are leading to moral decay in America and encouraging teenagers to have sex. This debate has recently led to increasing fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for “indecent” and “obscene” material (remember the Janet Jackson “Nipplegate” scandal?) and a movement for stricter censorship of all broadcast, cable, and satellite programming.

The animosity towards sex on television contributes to an overall culture where people are uncomfortable to talk about and confront their sexuality openly. Instead, sex is still considered America’s dirty little secret and only discussed behind closed doors. Under a false veil of prudishness maintained by certain groups lies a sexual America. Sex is a normal and healthy function of adult life and positive and responsible portrayals of sex in television could lead to an opening up and fostering of safe and healthy sexuality.

The United States has long had a more conservative predilection towards public displays of sex and sexuality than those of our counterpart in Europe. Western Europe has a much more relaxed attitude towards sex and nudity both in the media and in everyday life. Full frontal nudity is common on broadcast stations as well as nude sunbathing at the beach and parks. Pornography can be found on a regular television set, free of charge. Despite more public displays of nudity and sexuality, there is less teen pregnancy, abortions, and sex crimes compared to the United States. By fostering open portrayals of sexuality and enacting thorough sex education programs, Europe’s social and sexual issues are addressed and treated rather than ignored and swept under the rug.

The U.S. government, encouraged by numerous media watch groups, has been pushing for tighter control on what is allowed on television. The effects of the growing movement for indecency regulation are apparent. Following the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast in 2004, CBS and its affiliate stations were fined a record $550,000 by the FCC for violating indecency standards. A year later, the House of Representatives passed a bill increasing the limit for indecency fines from $32,000 to $500,000 per violation. The FCC’s policing for indecent material has grown evermore vigilant. In 2000, they collected only $48,000 in fines. In 2004, they collected nearly $8 million. What’s more, in 2006 legislation was drafted to have cable and satellite programming fall under the same decency standards as broadcast TV and radio under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

This heavy policing for indecency violations leaves many individuals and networks worried. Putting regulations on cable brings up questions of constitutionality and capitalism, as people are paying for a service and choosing what they want to watch. A market research study conducted by Arbitron in 2006 found that an overwhelming majority (77 percent) of Americans think that cable programming should be unrestricted and uncensored. This fervor has also led to networks self-censoring any of their programming that might intimate sex. Fox blurred out the main character’s bare butt in their animated series Family Guy. The FCC is also considering leveling a $1.2 million fine against Fox for a scene in their reality TV show Married in America for a scene in which a female contestant licked whipped cream off of a male stripper’s chest. Even historical and educational documentaries aired on PBS are not immune. Rick Steves, host of several popular travel series, muses that he may have to worry that his series could receive fines for showing classic nude European art, like Michelangelo’s “David.”No one is immune from the FCC’s tightening grip

Another major issue regarding sex on television is a problem with its unrealistic portrayals. Habitually, sex is simplified and romanticized. We’re all familiar with the formula: man meets woman, they fall madly in love, and have incredible, passionate sex and reach climax at the exact same time the very first time they have sex. Sex on television is frequently an illustration of fantasy. No emotional aftermath ensues. Watching TV, one wouldn’t guess that there is a lot more to sex than reaching climax and moving on with your day. Not all shows are guilty of this; Sex and the City made an entire series on all the intricacies and mundaneness of sex. The show frequently had full-frontal nudity, sex scenes, and talk of anal sex and the elusive female orgasm. And instead of constantly presenting mind-blowing sex, there were often frank discussions on the awkward and embarrassing moments of sex. Though sometimes trite and materialistic, Sex and the City has portrayed the most realistic sex on American television.

There also exists a bit of a doubled standard in television’s depictions of men and women. Nudity is not equally divided among the sexes. Women’s breasts have become quite commonplace. Full-frontal female nudity is often considered art. Yet, we rarely see a naked male. Full-frontal male nudity is equivalent to pornography in the United States. While male nudity is not surprising on the TV sets and movies of Western Europe, the male genitalia remains elusive here at home. Meema Spadola, co-director of Private Dicks, a rare movie devoted to the male penis, jokes about the lack of male genitalia on TV: "The penis is like the Wizard of Oz. It's like, 'Do not look at the great and terrible Oz!' Like the Wizard, the penis can never measure up to the image we have in our minds." The uneven distribution of female nudity cements woman’s role as an object of sexual desire while male sexuality continues to remain a mystery.
 
The many groups behind the movement for censoring sex from television would like to pretend that sex does not exist. By removing sexual content from television, the message is clear: sex is dirty and wrong and human beings are not sexual creatures. These beliefs lead to an air of ignorance regarding sex that actually causes more harm than good. There is no way to eliminate sexual content from television without censoring and infringing on every individual’s right to choose for him or herself the ways in which they want to be entertained.

Of course minors should not be exposed to gratuitous sex, but instead of delegating the task of sex education to the media, it is the parent’s responsibility to communicate with their offspring the appropriate values surrounding sex and sexuality. There is a solution and it does not involve content regulation. David Walsh, founder of the MediaWise movement, believes that instead of not allowing certain content on the air, parents need to monitor what their progeny are watching and talk to them about that they are seeing. “When sex does appear on TV in ways that we don’t agree with, we need to let our kids know that we notice. How else will our kids know the difference between the people on the screen and the ones who love them in real life?”

Sex is not going away anytime soon. It’s a fact of life and trying to pretend it does not exist will not make the social problems surrounding it disappear. Instead of worrying if too much sex on television is contributing to “loosening moral standards” the debate needs to be shifted to ask, “Why are there no positive images of sex on television?” The medium is so pervasive that healthy, realistic portrayals of sex could do a lot to shatter the myths of sex and help people get a more genuine grasp on their own sexuality.