Yeah, I would argue "long term relationship" is a sign of commitment.

I'm more talking about shows and movies that make it seem like non-committal hookups and switching sexual partners rapidly for any reason is cool and totally normal:

- How I Met Your Mother (Barney)

- The Office (everyone has slept with everyone by the end)

- Game of Thrones

You could argue the "good" characters like Tyrion typically showed more commitment in their sexual activities than "bad" characters like Theon who just knocked up random women for fun. But even then you have instances where the "heroes" like Arya have one night stands with no consequences (because HBO wanted to be edgy).

- Friends

I'll be honest I've not seen the first two series so I'll avoid speculating. I'm sure you are absolutely right.

In the case of Game of Thrones, a lot of the more 'liberal' sexual encounters were really put in for shock value or an excuse for nudity, for example Oberyn's orgy scenes. I never really got the feeling it was trying to normalise these things, but that was just my interpretation.

Similarly for Friends my interpretation was characters like Joey were to be the punchline of a joke, not to say his behaviour was normal. It felt more to laugh AT him, not to normalise it.

My experiences of mainstream media seems to largely focus on the young bachelor(ette) who has casual sex as a 'phase', or the monogamous faithful couple who've grown up and matured. Despite this narrative, I really don't believe monogamy works for a fair percentage of the population. This leads to either two states:-

1. They never form close romantic relationships, leading to more casual sex and probably larger risk of spreading STDs.

2. They do engage in a monogamous relationship, only for it to turn sour because of the tensions it causes. In some cases this leads to a party cheating on the other. These people almost never go to STI clinics to get tested for fear it will ruin their relationships.

How about instead the mainstream media embraced the idea of wanting to have multiple sexual partners is fine regardless of your stage of your life or your relationship status? That way, we can have make sure that everyone is informed of the risks and getting the medical treatment they need to keep themselves and others safe (particularly regular testing). As soon as you start demonising it and saying you shouldn't feel that way, people will do it anyway and just hide it instead.

Have you considered the possibility that this might have more to do with the fact that serial monogamy is already widespread (and has been since before it was commonly depicted on television) and the shows have a relatively limited cast of characters?

Even if not, are we asking the government to step in and ban Friends? Because if not, I don’t see how this observation gives us anything approaching a solution.

Continuing to raise awareness of the consequences of assuming risky behavior is a reasonable action that could be taken. With widespread messaging, the burdens of the consequences of risky behavior greater fall solely onto those who engage in the behavior, rather than being distributed evenly across society

“Raising awareness” sounds pretty much useless.

No evidence provided.

Of course it is useful - if you don’t know of a thing, you don’t know the consequences of engaging in that thing. It’s as axiomatic as the trite and age old saying “knowledge is power”. Your comment is completely disingenuous.

I don’t think the problem here is people aren’t aware that venereal disease is a possible result of unprotected sex. You have provided just as little evidence for your assertion to the contrary.

My hunch is that people are probably generally unaware of the recent rise in syphilis cases, would do well to be more informed, and with proliferation of the message some general adjustment of behavior in society is to be expected

My hunch is that that isn’t true because people on the story are shrugging off multiple infections.

Again anecdotal evidence. Just because some people shrug off multiple infections does not mean awareness has no influence.

And your "hunches" are rigorous? If you are going to demand rigor of your interlocutors I would say you have an obligation to demonstrate it yourself.

> Even if not, are we asking the government to step in and ban Friends? Because if not, I don’t see how this observation gives us anything approaching a solution.

Absolutely not. Government should not have to solve every problem in society. The solution is for us (consumers) to not watch shows that promote values we don't agree with. And if you do agree with them... you reap what you sow.

So in other words you don’t have any solution.

I have a solution, just not a solution the government can implement.

Attempt to derail parent argument by citing inadequacy of reflection of anecdote in a general survey of literature/media

Pretty much every sitcom today glorifies casual sex and avoidance of committed relationships. “How I Met Your Mother” for example.