Psrhea: Sexual Politics: Another Man's View

Another Man's View
David Kennedy

Titillating Television (TTV)

I turned 38 years old recently, which means that I am at the age where advertisers and the entertainment media have long since stopped trying to appeal to me and my pocketbook.

It's not hard, really, to figure out why. I'm not in that target demographic that Corporate America (and from here on out we will refer to them as C.A., and for our purposes we will refer to advertisers and the entertainment medial as "a&em") says has the largest "disposable income", a subsection of he population which C.A. are forever trying to appeal to. You know what demographic I'm talking about; the impressionable 15-29 year olds who will run out and spend their money on whatever it is C.A. and a&em says they should buy.

The most effective medium used to separate the target demographic from its money is television. And what tools does television use to sell the 15-29 year olds on the wares that C.A. and a&em are selling?

Sports and sex.

In the Nineties the highest rated television programs have been either sports related or centered around some kind of sexual drama or comedic sexual tension. The most watched single program year-in and year-out is the Super Bowl. The NBA Finals and the World Series are not far behind. And no other cable network is seen by more people than ESPN.

One thing the networks can count on with sports is that every age demographic is watching, even if it is mostly males. Network programming, on the other hand, panders almost exclusively to that desired target demographic. And sex - specifically young people having sex - is the thing that is put into play the most. Friends has revolved around nothing but sex , the hint of sex, or angst about sex. ER is supposed to be about an emergency room, but the actual medical drama takes a back seat to whether Eriq Lasalle will entertain the possibility of an interracial affair. Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, Party of Five, Dawson's Creek, Felicity, The Practice, 7th Heaven, Veronica's Closet, Suddenly Susan, Moesha, Will & Grace, Spin City, Just Shoot Me, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, It's Like You Know, Dharma & Greg, Two Guys and a Girl, Jesse, Charmed, Frasier, Providence, Boy Meets World, and Sabrina The Teenage Witch all have some kind of sexual tension or static as their primary story lines. And don't get me started on Ally McBeal; the producers of that show have made a franchise out of sexual angst (somehow I don't think Calista Flockhart was the kind of liberated future the original women's libbers had in mind).

What's worse, daytime television programming is shameless about the use of sex to get people to watch. It's bad enough that tabloid talk shows pander to the lowest common denominator to find the most dysfunctional guests they can find. Said dysfunction always has to do with some kind of sexual conflict. When these shows were told to clean up the violence and on-air attacks, they turned to the most unfathomable deviant sexual behavior to keep their youthful viewers glued to their television sets.

Needless to say, I don't watch too many of these shows. But that's not to say that I don't watch much television. I've reached an age where I want something better from my network programming than to be titillated all the time. So I watch programming where sex is not a chief thematic ingredient. On shows like 60 Minutes, Martial Law, Star Trek Voyager, Drew Carey, JAG, 3rd Rock From The Sun, The Hughleys, Sports Night, Seven Days, Homicide, Law and Order, Nash Bridges, and That 70's Show the writing is clever, the dialogue is witty, and the stories tend to revolve around something a little more mundane yet substantive than sex. Of course, for just this reason these shows are not among the more popularly watched shows. They stay on television because, well, there actually are some people other than that target demographic that are watching television, and we need something to watch.

Just how did 15-29 year olds get to be the main target for advertisers? Four reasons:
(1) They are munchkinheads with (2) raging hormones who (3) are too impressionable to realize that their sexual subconscious is being assaulted by a&em to the point that (4) they are snowed into separating themselves from money they don't really have. Especially teenagers, who are the least likely to even have jobs and, by extension, any income beyond what their parents give them. This age group is way too young to have any real sense of their own mortality, very little history to speak of, and most of all a limited sense of their future. Couple that with the fact that they are the age group at their sexual peak physically and most likely to be driven by their desires, and you have the ingredients for a group of people who live for the here and now. So they'll spend whatever money they have on whatever gives them immediate gratification.

When I was part of that target demographic, in the Seventies, I wasn't a total slave to my hormones, but - even at a time when the networks weren't completely beholden to C.A and advertisers and had yet to identify 15-29 year olds as a primary aim - there were certain television shows I watched purely to satisfy my libido. Love, American Style was one. I watched The Love Boat and Fantasy Island for the skimpy little swimsuits the cute young starlets used to wear, and the abundant sexcapades. I really did think WKRP In Cincinnati was funny, but it helped that buxom Lonnie Anderson was a cast member. If it weren't for Suzanne Summers , her tight little shorts, and her perky bosoms coming through those form-fitting tops I never would have watched Three's Company. Same for Vegas, which weekly had Judy Landers, Phyllis Davis and a bevy of showgirls displaying their wares. Lets not confuse Charlie's Angels with anything cerebral; there were three reasons anybody watched, including me. And I'm embarrassed to admit that Solid Gold was a weekly staple of mine solely for the hardbodies personified by their dancers.

Recently I channel-surfed through Nick At Nite, the cable channel of old television shows, and caught glimpses of some of my old favorites from my teen years. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, so some twenty-odd years later I recognized that the only reason I watched most of those shows were because they were erotically-themed programs littered with sultry sexpots. That had to be the reasons because, with only a couple of exceptions, I finally discerned that a large number of those shows I was religiously glued to were really pretty bad. As are a vast number of the current aforementioned programs viewed by today's target demographic.

Compare this target demographic with other age groups. The younger demographic (1-14) are children who don't really know anything about sex and have no money at all. The demographic just ahead of them (30-39) are "Tweeners" who have experienced some of life, are maturing and getting more conservative, and are very pragmatic about their spending habits. The Baby Boomers (40-55) have reached middle age, are trying to stabilize their lives, hold on to the monogamous relationships they already have, have raised their children, and already went through their "wild-child" stage to the point that sex is not an overriding concern anymore. Baby Boomers know that whatever a&em is selling would be ridiculous for them to have (baggy cargo pants, Nintendo). And you can forget the oldest demographic of all (56 and above); they're retired, have lived their lives and are likely to be on a fixed income. They're buying exactly what they need to live on.

The least likely demographic, though, to have money to spend are the target demographic of 15-29 year olds. Tweeners, Baby Boomers, and senior citizens are very selective about how they spend their money, so they are less likely to be swayed by titillating television and its attendant advertising assault.

Of course, nobody in the target demographic will agree with anything I'm saying. They'll just think I'm some wet blanket trying to rain on their parade. They won't understand what's being said here until they get to be my age.

Let me be clear about something here. I love sex as much as anybody (if you don't believe me ask my worn-out girlfriend and my callused left hand). I've just reached a point in my life where I don't want to be titillated by the "hint of sex". I don't want to spend the next six months glued to a television program week after week to see if "maybe" Billy will give into his impulses and "kiss" Ally. If I want to see sex, then I want to see sex - now! So I'll either watch late-nite cable for some soft-core adult films or I'll go rent or buy some XXX-rated pornography. No watching daytime soaps for weeks to see a relationship unfold just so the networks can keep their daytime share. It's as basic as you can get: A man and a woman walk into the room; he wants to fuck her; she wants to fuck him; they fuck - and that's the end of that. Total elapsed time: ten minutes. No aggravating sponsorship interruptions, clumsy product placements, or annoying commercial tie-ins.

No way the networks can beat that.

David Kennedy has been making noises and finding the evidence of things not seen for most of his thirty-eight years. This would be less of a problem for him if he could just find someplace that sells motrin and prozac over-the-counter -- cheap!