Celebrity Promiscuity and the Media

Every day we are bombarded by headlines in the newspaper, magazines, on television news, on the internet, and the radio. Pop and Rap music sing the praises of sex and promiscuity. Models, actors, and actresses show more skin and less clothing as time goes on. Music videos are full of ‘dirty dancing’ and blatant sexual images and innuendo. The images that we see on a daily basis are sexually charged and overwhelmingly hard to ignore.

It is this constant proliferation of sex and sexual images that has led to a desensitizing of many Americans. The constant exposure to sexual images and details of private sexual celebrity escapades has led many to simply accept this overt sexual atmosphere by which we find ourselves surrounded. But we should not have to simply accept it.

American society has changed greatly over time. Over the years, we have seen an ebb and flow of sexuality and sexual images in open society. In the early 1900’s, men and women lived very different lives from one another. Women were expected to dress and behave ‘appropriately’ for the times, which meant long sleeves, high necks, and long skirts. Skin was not to be seen. Men were known to openly frequent brothels. This double standard was widely accepted.

The roaring ‘20’s brought the jazz age, sexy women, short, short dresses, and the introduction of sexual tension into the psyche of the American conscience. This behavior receded with the Great Depression in the ‘30’s and 40’s, with the insurgence of conservative behavior, once again. Parents held their children closer and family values were back in vogue.

The ‘50’s brought us Elvis and his ‘scandalous’ hip-shaking, which shocked America’s once again, prudish sensibilities. Censors refused to film him from the waist down to ‘protect’ viewers from what they might see. Until this point in time, Americans tended to keep sexuality behind closed doors (thankfully). It wasn’t until the ‘60’s that America began to experience what many conservative Christians would call a ‘moral decline’.

The ‘60’s were a time of free love and open sexuality, multiple sex partners, drugs, and a denouncing of previously accepted marriage and family values. I believe that this was the turning point for our country’s desensitizing to ‘all things sexual’. While we still have groups of citizens who subscribe whole-heartedly to conservative views today, many more openly accept and even welcome the media’s portrayal of sex and sexuality.

And yet, the images we see in the media generally do not represent ‘real’ sexuality for most people. Instead, it glamorizes sex and brings it to the forefront of all things. Reality in life for most people is not about sex; how to get it, where to get it, or how often to get it. Average Americans are too busy trying to raise their families and make a living to be obsessing about sex and sexuality all the time. If we were to believe the media’s portrayal of reality, we would have time for little else. According to an informal survey among friends and co-workers, sex ranks low on the list of priorities for most.

So why are we constantly surrounded by sexual images and stories in the media? What is it about this topic that Hollywood finds so appealing that in 2008, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s unwed 17-year-old daughter not only makes headlines, but receives congratulations from celebrities and even some conservative Christians, who applaud her from a ‘pro-life standpoint’?
The glorifying of unwed celebrities making babies is, in my opinion, highly irresponsible. Indeed, I would argue that it’s harmful to our impressionable young people. The practice of publicizing and glorifying unwed pregnancies is so prolific, there is even a site dedicated to it. CelebrityPregnancy.com takes pleasure in passing on ‘the good news’ about this celebrity or that and their blessed event to be. Most are not married.

However, what this reinforces is the fact that these people, that children and teenagers look up to, do not feel it is necessary to make any commitment to each other before bringing a child into the world. And many of these celebrities don’t just stop at one child. They have three and four children, often with multiple partners. What happened to commitment to one another? The idea of providing a stable, loving home to one’s children seems to have fallen by the wayside. I find this to be shameful.

But I also take issue with those that use the excuse that ‘sex sells’ to justify this type of behavior. I, for one, do not ‘buy into sex’. Nor do I read or pay attention to stories that focus on the private sex lives of celebrities and politicians. I am ashamed for them and for the members of the media who feel it’s acceptable to bring these private matters into the homes of every American, whether we want it or not. And, I am ashamed of those who, whether they admit it or not, find these types of stories to be appealing. It saddens me to know that people would stoop so low as to not only pry into the private lives of others, but to use that private information for profit.

I am not a prude. However, I believe that children should not be brought into the world unless their parents have made a commitment to one another, to provide a loving and stable family to those children. Be denouncing marriage, they clearly demonstrate that the relationship is temporary, and that is not the environment any child should be subjected to, to satisfy the selfish purposes of the adults in question. The message we are sending to our children is that no commitment is necessary to make babies.

However, the real question of ethics arises, I believe, when we take a long, hard look at how this idea has come to be so widely accepted. I believe that Hollywood and the media are to blame for this constant exposure to the new ‘ideals’ of our society. By constantly publicizing and glamorizing uncommitted (unwed) pregnancies, they are in fact condoning; even encouraging it.

It is my firm belief that Hollywood and the media have the moral responsibility to change this. I believe that they have taken an incredible power; the power to influence others, and used it to spread moral decay around our country and the world. We have gone from a time where a fully-clothed kiss in the movies was considered risqué, to hot dog venders in thongs on the streets of Miami. Hollywood and the media have brought such a proliferation of sexual images into our consciousness, that half-naked girls on the street barely raise an eyebrow today.

Every day we hear about more public figures and celebrities who are intentionally making babies, addicted to online porn, announcing their sexual relationships to the world, or releasing their private ‘sex tapes’ and then pretending to be horrified when they end up on You Tube. But who is really buying into all this?

What do religious groups have to say about this shift in moral sensitivities? Conservative Christians have historically decried out-of-wedlock pregnancies. But, some of these same conservatives would argue that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy is better than abortion. Where do religious organizations stand with regard to this overwhelming message glamorizing sex, promiscuity, and unwed pregnancies in the media?

“The Catholic church teaches that situations where sex occurs outside of marriage ‘offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law” (internet reference #1). If this is true, how can it be that many Christians have praised Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol (or remained silent) when it was publicly announced that she is pregnant and unmarried, at the age of 17?

ReligiousTolerance.org, a site dedicated to understanding and accepting people of all faiths, acknowledges there are many interpretations among different denominations. With regard to Christianity they demonstrate the differences when trying to define the term:

“There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian". Four examples are:
Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.
However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.

Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal.

Other denominations regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.
Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%” (internet reference #2).

This in-fighting among those that claim to be Christians is a clear demonstration of why there has been little outcry regarding the issue of unwed pregnancy glorification by the media. When large segments of the population cannot agree on the interpretations of what is arguably the same material, it is impossible to come to a unified consensus on external issues facing our society.

Jacob Weisberg a contributor at Newsweek, was quoted as telling David Schuster of MSNBC, “I was shocked to see her unmarried (Palin’s) pregnant teenage daughter on stage with the Republican nominee. It seemed to me that Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the Republicans embracing unwed motherhood this way. And I think, really, the issue there is about the pro-life absolutism that has come to dominate the party” (internet reference #3).

But where was the public outcry? Where were the church leaders denouncing the
fact that the media was glorifying premarital sex and unwed pregnancy? The silence was
deafening. For those of us who have had enough, all we can do is turn off the television
to stop the flood of endless stories about sex, and the glorification of making babies
without the security of a stable, loving, committed relationship between two adults.

This leaves us to examine how other religious organizations view this mostly American phenomenon. According to Beliefnet.com, with regard to premarital sex the Jewish faith teaches “sex and other acts that may lead to sex are only allowed within the context of a marriage. Sex is not only a means of physical gratification, but an important act that ‘requires commitment and responsibility’ (internet reference # 1). Commitment and responsibility are clearly not part of the message Hollywood and the media are spreading.

Islamics have similar beliefs with regard to premarital sex. “According to the Qur’an, ‘the believers are…those who protect their sexual organs except from their spouses...” (internet reference #1). They add “Muslim scholars say this statement ‘makes it very clear that any sexual gratification outside of marriage is considered a transgression of the law of God” (internet reference #1).

One religious organization that is outspoken, specifically with regard to unwed pregnancy, is the Church of Latter Day Saints. “Mormons believe that sexual relations are permitted only with one’s spouse of legal marriage….the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions—all ugly sing—but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins” (internet reference #1).

Very few religious organizations accept or condone blatant promiscuous sexual behavior, particularly outside of marriage or a committed relationship, and none openly support unwed pregnancies. One religion that does not view premarital sex as immoral is Buddhism. According to Beliefnet.com, “Buddhists believe that sex before marriage is not immoral if there is love and consent between the two parties involved” (internet reference #1).

Strangely enough, if the figures are correct as to the segment of the population that identifies themselves as Christian, assuming they believe the teachings of the church; why has there been no public outcry? Add to this figure those of the Jewish faith, Islamic faith, and all the others that view premarital sex (and therefore, any resulting pregnancy) as wrong, who is left? And by virtue of the behavior, if premarital sex is considered to be immoral, unwed pregnancy cannot be acceptable either. Again, assuming the figures are correct, who exactly is ‘buying into’ all this sex in the media? Who is this market to which Hollywood and the media are marketing?

Which brings us back to moral responsibility; if the majority of the population is of the belief that premarital sex is wrong, and therefore unwed pregnancy is not something for which we should strive, who is responsible for changing the message that is being spread by Hollywood and the media? My conclusion is that the people who have a moral obligation to society to put an end to the spread of this message are none other than Hollywood and the media themselves. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with them, as it is clear that the general population does not want to hear their message. And so, I rest my case.

Works Cited

Internet Reference #1, http://www.beliefnet.com/, “Religions on Premarital Sex”


Internet Reference #2, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ , “Who is a Christian?”


Internet Reference #3, http://www.newsbusters.org/ , “Slate's Weisberg to MSNBC on Palin Pregnancy: Reagan Would Be Rolling Over in His Grave” by Kerry Picket