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.

In a previous post on my own blog entitled Evidence of Body, I pointed out a special characteristic of this cross-platform initiative – that unusually you can see, after very little time, evidence of immediate, positive changes of behaviour. That observation was made with reference to the week-long series of Embarrassing Bodies broadcast in April/May, but the recent four-part series focused on teenagers yielded similar clear evidence of real public value.

A quick and pretty unscientific trawl through the comments submitted to the Embarrassing Teenage Bodies website – this time there were 11,000 submitted over the six days around transmission! – reveal actual changes of behaviour; the building of confidence around illnesses perceived as “embarrassing”; the prompting of increased openness in discussing such matters; reassurance; clarification; and the encouragement of peer-to-peer support.

On this page you’ll find a brief selection of comments that illustrate the sorts of impact evident across the site. There’s a more comprehensive list of such comments on More Evidence of Body (a post on my blog) or even better, take a few moments to explore the Embarrassing Teenage Bodies website itself to get a feel for what it’s achieved.

Sample quotes:

“thanks teenage bodies thanks to you i’ve had the confidence to go and have a std test.”

“This site and video is soooo useful and informative!!! I feel more confident to see my GP and look him/her in the eye and state my problem.”

“I was worried about how i looked “down there” but this video made me realise everybody is different and that it’s completely normal to worry.”

“GREAT show. It encouraged me to go get something checked out =) & I’m sure it encouraged a lot of other teenagers to get stuff thats bothering them checked out!”

“After watching your show, my husband decided to check himself one night whilst having a shower. To his shock he found a lump. He went straight to his doctor and within a week he had surgery for testicular cancer, needs to have a few more scans, but thanks to the show he managed to find it in time.”

“I find this so embarrassing… but i’m glad to know i’m not the only one.”

“i am so glad i’ve actually found this website, because it has really helped me reading all these comments about other people that have this problem.”

“these videos hav helped me check my self down below and now me and my friends have been comfitable talking to each other about our pubity problems!!!”

I’d be very interested to hear from anyone who watched the shows or used the website – did you feel they engaged viewers with the vital health issues covered in a constructive way? How does this kind of lively, colourful approach to preventive healthcare compare to more official, formal approaches?

Last year, Stonewall named Hollyoaks its Broadcast of the Year for the the programme’s “sympathetic and convincing handling” of the love affair between characters John-Paul McQueen and Craig Dean. This hugely popular storyline recently concluded, attracting praise from www.afterelton.com and Tim Teeman at The Times, who described Hollyoaks as “…a prince among soaps, a once ugly duckling transformed into a beautiful, if crazed, feather-ruffling swan.”

We have received a mix of comments from viewers about the Hollyoaks storyline. Some have praised the way that sexual stereotypes have been debunked while others have claimed that showing relationships between homosexual characters is inappropriate at the time that Hollyoaks is transmitted. This point was addressed directly by the commissioning team in an earlier blog post, where it was pointed out that relationships are an important part of teenage life and are therefore a perfectly legitimate subject for an early evening show like Hollyoaks, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Rick and Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple in All the World, a cartoon set in a village only occupied by gays and lesbians, recently prompted a number of gay E4 viewers to write in and tell us how upset they were by a programme that found humour in subjects such as HIV. Make Me a Christian also attracted some criticism from viewers for including a contributor’s opinion that sexuality is something that can be changed.

Arguably the bar has been set high by programmes such as Queer as Folk, which although first broadcast almost ten years ago, is still remembered with fondness and often quoted in research groups when people are asked about programmes which make Channel 4 distinctive. Is this the yardstick against which other programme are measured? What do you think about that way the channel represents gay issues and characters?

If you have watched any of these programmes or any other Channel 4 programme and want to express a view, we would love to hear from you.

The Sex Education Show

You navigate the Sexperience site mainly through questions – ranging from “Have you ever had a problem using contraception?” to “What impact did abortion have on you longer term?” and for any given question you’ll find a range of answers which may even be mutually contradictory and will certainly be diverse. The idea behind this is to offer something which goes beyond the easy answers of self-help manuals and acknowledges the complexity and individuality of sex.

In the three hours after the show went out this week there were 480,000 page views on the site, taking it to the top of the hit parade on channel4.com. There were 2,000 (pre-moderated) comments and questions posted in the first week, a large proportion evidently from 16-18 year olds, clearly hungry  for answers and often astonishingly ill-informed. So there are strong indications that the interest, the engagement and the need are there. One of the first viewer enquiries that made its way through to me was an NHS teen pregnancy unit in Lincolnshire which asked to use the site in their advice literature.

In the same way, you can take it as read that The Guardian may well understand the rationale of The Sex Education Show and its pre-watershed scheduling, needless to say the Daily Mail gave it a bit of a rough ride:

“Channel 4 has been accused of peddling obscenity… school pupils asked to discuss pornography… In the programme a group of boys were shown close-up images of penises and asked which they thought was the average size… A male model’s genitals were also shown in close up as a female doctor described in depth the anatomy of the penis… “

So it seems only appropriate to give the last word to the Daily Mail readers who posted 167 comments in 108 minutes under that article… (for copyright reasons I can’t reproduce the comments verbatim so allow me to paraphrase):

Annie from Lincoln recounts how she watched the show with her husband and 12-year-old son and how, “it sparked a really honest and helpful discussion.” She says that she didn’t find the images of genitalia prurient or arousing and with reference to her son confirms, “it was actually helpful for him to see how other normal people looked, without resorting to porn.” The message she took from those sequences was to be happy with your body.

Jeff from Chester, a parent of teenagers, found the programme “very informative and real”. He thought it would be much more useful to show teenagers a programme like this than “the tepid sex education stuff they usually get at school”. He felt this kind of real-life education is what is needed to reduce the prevalence of STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

David Burns of Coventry thought it was “not vulgar or seedy in any way at all”. As a 48-year-old with four children he even learnt new things himself – he had never realised that condoms come in different sizes. Shouldn’t teenagers know that? he asks.

Ali from Liverpool reminds readers of Channel 4’s particular remit, feels the Channel is the only UK broadcaster which could make a programme like this and defends the scheduling at 8pm, confirming it as “the right time but no earlier.” He sees The Sex Education Show as clearly educational with responsible pre-warning of the frank and sometimes explicit nature of the content.

Ellie from London highlights how children and teenagers are exposed through the internet to what she calls the “soft pornographic side of sex which is zero education”. She appreciates the honesty and reality of the portrayal of sexual anatomy and feels it is what responsible parents should be doing anyway. She is wary of glossing over these realities when addressing say a 13 year old child otherwise they are “then more than likely going to naively get into trouble”. She wishes more parents would speak to their children as honestly.

Arwen from Edinburgh concisely states, “This show is educational” and believes society needs to be less scared of talking about sexn concluding “unless you prefer teen pregnancy that is.”

Whether you’re an alpha Mail or a Guardian of free expression, I’d be delighted to hear whether you feel Sexperience and/or The Sex Education Show achieves its underlying educative intent. Please leave your comments below…