Two complaints were received regarding the airing of a skit of a mother answering her young son’s 
questions about the conception of babies. The segment was aired at approximately 17:15 on 15 August 2006. The complaints were that airing sex-related material was unacceptable, especially during peak-time traffic. A single commissioner upheld the complaints when asked to adjudicate the complaint by the Chairperson.
The respondent appealed against the adjudication on the ground that the segment was preceded by a warning, was educational to children, used words that are familiar to children, and had to be viewed in the context of a week-long discussion of parents’ having to educate their children and answer their difficult and embarrassing questions.
The Commission held that although the segment might have been intended as a humorous way to educate children about sex it did not serve any real educational purpose. Airing the segment was not in line with the respondent’s stated objective of educating children in a humorous way about sex and HIV/AIDS, as it had nothing to do with HIV/AIDS education, would probably not have taught teenagers anything they did not already know, would have embarrassed some younger children, and would have failed to be understood by others. Further, the discussion about “the s word” which preceded the segment did not constitute sufficient warning that a discussion of sex was to follow. However, the segment did not contain obscene material or material that is harmful to children. The terminology used was archaic and the description of what happened was not so explicit that it could have had a harmful effect on sexual education. It simply was a skit of questionable taste. Complaints dismissed.