The Lessons Will Be Televised: Examining Television Portrayals of Sexual Consequences by Gender

Abstract

This study examined the sexual double standard in the portrayal of sexual consequences on television. A content analysis of television programs nominated for Teen Choice Awards from 2012 to 2015 revealed that female characters received more negative sexual consequences than male characters, but there was no gender difference in who received positive sexual consequences. The gendered distribution of negative sexual consequences was qualified by age of the casts in the television programs. Negative sexual consequences were significantly more likely to be experienced by female characters than male characters within shows that primarily featured teens, thus reinforcing a discourse of sexual risk and danger for teen girls.

Keywords

sexual consequences content analysis sexual double standard social cognitive theory gender

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aubrey

J. S.

(2004). Sex and punishment: An examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50(7), 505–514. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023070.87195.07

Ballam

S. M.

Granello

P. F.

(2011). Confronting sex in the media: Implications and counseling recommendations. The Family Journal, 19(4), 421–426. http://doi.org/10.1177/1066480711417237

Bandura

(2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 94–124). Routledge.

Bleakley

Khurana

Hennessy

Ellithorpe

(2018). How patterns of learning about sexual information among adolescents are related to sexual behaviors. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 50(1), 15–23. http://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12053

Boyar

Levine

Zensius

(2011). TECHsex USA: Youth sexuality and reproductive health in the digital age. https://www.ccasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Youth-Sexuality-and-Reproductive-Health-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf

Bussey

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

Carpenter

L. M.

(1998). From girls into women: Scripts for sexuality and romance in Seventeen magazine, 1974–1994. Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 158–168. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551929

Chandra-Mouli

Piesons

Adebayo

Amin

Avni

Kraft

J. M.

Lane

Brundage

C. L.

Kreinin

Bosworth

Garcia-Moreno

Malarcher

(2017). Implications of the Global Early Adolescents Study’s formative research findings for action and for research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(4), S5–S9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.07.012

Collins

R. L.

Martino

Shaw

(2011). Influence of new media on adolescent sexual health: Evidence and opportunities. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR761.html

10.

Crawford

Popp

(2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13–26. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552163

11.

Emmerink

P. M. J.

van den Eijnden

R. J. J. M.

Vanwesenbeeck

ter Bogt

T. F. M.

(2016). The relationship between endorsement of the sexual double standard and sexual cognitions and emotions. Sex Roles, 75(7), 363–377. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0616-z

12.

Erikson

(1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. W.W. Norton.

13.

Eyal

Finnerty

(2009). The portrayal of sexual intercourse on television: How, who, and with what consequence? Mass Communication & Society, 12(2), 143–169. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205430802136713

14.

Eyal

Kunkel

(2008). The effects of sex in television drama shows on emerging adults’ sexual attitudes and moral judgments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(2), 161–181. http://doi.org/10.1080/08838150801991757

15.

Farrar

K. M.

(2006). Sexual intercourse on television: Do safe sex messages matter? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 635–650. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5004_4

16.

Finnerty-Myers

(2011). Understanding the dynamics behind the relationship between exposure to negative consequences of risky sex on entertainment television and emerging adults’ safe-sex attitudes and intentions. Mass Communication & Society, 14(6), 743–764. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.540057

17.

Fortenberry

J. D.

(2013). Puberty and adolescent sexuality. Hormones and Behavior, 64(2), 280–287. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00392.x

18.

Gottfried

J. A.

Vaala

S. E.

Bleakley

Hennessy

Jordan

(2013). Does the effect of exposure to TV sex on adolescent sexual behavior vary by genre? Communication Research, 40(1), 73–95. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211415399

19.

Huesmann

L. R.

(1997). Observational learning of violent behavior: Social and biosocial processes. In Raine

(Ed.), Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 69–88). Plenum Press.

20.

Hynie

Lydon

J. E.

(1995). Women’s perceptions of female contraceptive behavior: Experimental evidence of the sexual double standard. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4), 563–581. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00093.x

21.

Joshi

S. P.

Peter

Valkenburg

(2011). Scripts of sexual desire and danger in U.S. and Dutch teen girl magazines: A cross-national content analysis. Sex Roles, 64(7–8), 463–474. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9941-4

22.

Kim

J. L.

Sorsoli

J. L.

Collins

Zylbergold

B. A.

Schooler

Tolman

D. L.

(2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 145–157. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660

23.

Krippendorff

(2014). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.

24.

Kunkel

Cope

Farinola

Biely

Rollin

Donnerstein

(1999). Sex on TV: A biennial report to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sex-on-tv-a-biennial-report-to-the-kaiser-family-foundation-1999-report.pdf

25.

Kunkel

Eyal

Finnerty

Biely

Donnerstein

(2005). Sex on TV 4: A biennial report to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sex-on-tv-4-full-report.pdf

26.

Malacane

Martins

(2017). Sexual socialization messages in television programming produced for adolescents. Mass Communication & Society, 20(1), 23–46. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1203436

27.

Montemurro

(2003). Not a laughing matter: Sexual harassment as “material” on workplace-based situation comedies. Sex Roles, 48(9), 433–445. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023578528629

28.

Moyer-Gusé

Mahood

Brookes

(2011). Entertainment-education in the context of humor: Effects on safer sex intentions and risk perceptions. Health Communication, 26(8), 765–774. http://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.566832

29.

Nabi

R. L.

Clark

(2008). Exploring the limits of social cognitive theory: Why negatively reinforced behaviors on TV may be modeled anyway. Journal of Communication, 58, 407–427. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00392.x

30.

Neuendorf

K. A.

(2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.

31.

Ortiz

R. R.

Brooks

M. E.

(2014). Getting what they deserve? Consequences of sexual expression by central characters in five popular television teen dramas in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(1), 40–52. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.863477

32.

Piper Sandler & Co. (2020). Taking stock with teens. http://www.pipersandler.com/3col.aspx?id=6039

33.

Rideout

(2016). Measuring time spent with media: The Common Sense census of media use by U.S. 8- to 18-year-olds. Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 138–144. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1129808

34.

Scharrer

(2001). From wise to foolish: The portrayal of the sitcom father, 1950s-1990s. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(1), 23–40. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4501_3

35.

Seabrook

R. C.

Ward

L. M.

Cortina

L. M.

Giaccardi

Lippman

J. R.

(2017). Girl power or powerless girl? Television, sexual scripts, and sexual agency in sexually active young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 240–253. http://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316677028

36.

Seabrook

R. C.

Ward

L. M.

Reed

Manago

Giaccardi

Lippman

(2016). Our scripted sexuality: The development and validation of a measure of the heterosexual script and its relation to television consumption. Emerging Adulthood, 4(5), 338–355. http://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815623686

37.

Smiler

A. P.

(2013). Challenging Casanova: Beyond the stereotype of the promiscuous young male. Jossey-Bass.

38.

Tolman

(2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Harvard University Press.

39.

Ward

L. M.

(2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014068031532

40.

Ward

L. M.

Lippman

Erickson

Giaccardi

(2016). Sexual media content and effects. In Nussbaum

J. F.

(Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of communication (pp. 1–39). Oxford University Press.

41.

Wright

P. J.

(2009). Sexual socialization messages in mainstream entertainment mass media: A review and synthesis. Sexuality and Culture, 13(4), 181–200. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-009-9050-5

42.

Zaikman

Marks

(2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71(9), 333–344. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0417-1

43.

Zurbriggen

Morgan

(2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54(1), 1–17. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8865-2