Sex Education v Pornography

Perhaps it will come as no surprise to discover a show like Sex Education v Pornography polarises opinion. It was the most praised programme in April, attracting positive comments from a range of viewers from teenagers to grand-parents. It also attracted over 100 critical comments, so I spoke to the commissioning editor, Walter Iuzzolino, to get his reaction to some of your criticisms.

He started the discussion by explaining that he had wanted to commission a programme that could be watched by families together – to appeal to teenagers and tackle the issues in a frank and open manner that would stimulate a discussion with parents and other members of the family after the show. He thought there were two important overriding points: for teenagers to extend their views of sex beyond the limitations of what they have probably seen in pornography, and for adults to see how easy it is for their children to access pornography using the internet.

Looking at the complaints that some viewers had made about the series, there were several common themes, the first of which was that the series did not spend enough time setting the discussion in the context of relationships. Walter thought that these complaints may have come from people who only watched the first two programmes in the series, as he thought that relationships were covered extensively in programmes three and four, while programmes one and two focused more on the nuts and bolts of anatomy. The second criticism was that the series had appeared to be entirely based around heterosexual relationships. Walter accepted this may have been true, but explained that the next series would explore all the many individual approaches to sexual relationships, including homosexuality and disability, as well as covering HIV and Aids more extensively than this series had done.

The third theme raised by viewers was that the programme itself might promote pornography. Walter defended strongly the candid and honest approach taken by the series which he felt was the antithesis of the furtive and closed nature of pornography, adding that the nudity was presented very carefully to be anatomical and informative rather than suggestive. The trail for the programme, which had attracted some criticism for being broadcast during the day, had contained no nudity but had tried to be very clear about the content of the programme. While it mentioned pornography and sex, these were referenced quite frequently in day time shows of all sorts, from sitcoms to chat shows.

Although the previous series of the programme prompted over 200 complaints to Channel 4, none of these were upheld by Ofcom, as they make clear in their latest Broadcast Bulletin published yesterday.

Permalink||(0) Comments