by Tina Grazier
WARNING: This posting contains explicit information about the expansion of sexual content on television.
I have wondered for a long time when the good citizens of America will finally get to the point where they've had enough; today that question ratcheted up another notch. Will full frontal male nudity and fornication between assorted combinations of participants on TV be the final straw? I fear not, but I think it's important to declare war and hopefully bring sufficient peer pressure to bear against the continuing assault on our children and society. Sleaze and porn have been shoved into the main stream for far too long. USA Today brings us the story:
"Sex on TV: It's increasingly uncut -- and unavoidable," by Gary Strauss - USA Today
Viewers are about to see full-frontal male nudity, heterosexual, homosexual and group sex, and graphic scenes rarely -- if ever -- seen on mainstream TV. And that's just on pay-cable Starz's fornication-heavy, 13-episode Spartacus: Blood and Sand (premieres Friday, 10 ET/PT), a 300-meets-Caligula epic about the Roman Empire's notorious slave/gladiator. ** MTV plans a June launch of The Hard Times of RJ Berger, a scripted comedy about a nerdy 15-year-old whose cool quotient heats up when his anatomical gift is accidentally exposed. And basic-cable network Spike's just-launched raunchy college-sports comedy Blue Mountain State (Tuesdays, 10 ET/PT) showed a masturbating school mascot on the Jan. 12 premiere, while last night's episode featured a scene suggesting oral sex between a coed and jock before the opening credits. ** "You need to get eyeballs. You need to be loud," says Spike programming chief Kevin Kay, who is pairing Blue Mountain with reruns of HBO's sex-centric Entourage. "Our viewers are experiencing content on other cable channels or the Web. Movies and video games are going after this audience, too."
The creators and producers of "smut TV", as some call it, offer the usual lame retort to objections:
...Fordham University media observer Paul Levinson, say(s) TV merely mirrors life. "It sounds radical, but this is healthy for popular culture," Levinson says. "Mainstream TV has been frozen in a very puritanical position by Congress, the FCC and the Supreme Court -- all who don't seem to understand the First Amendment. Sex is part of life. If people are offended, there's a simple remedy: Don't watch."
Oh what arrogance and ineptitude. Freedom doesn't give us license to peddle porn anywhere anytime. You need to be put back in a sleaze cage...time and place matter.
How is it that we have allowed slimy degenerate minds to determine what is acceptable content for general viewing? How is it that these so called adults can put every sexual perversion and odd ball fantasy out in the open for anyone to happen upon at any hour of the day?
From my perspective adults should have to go out of their way to purchase and view such explicit material. Adults are able and capable of purchasing such material for their own private viewing or placing it in venues that are private rather than open to general public viewing. Mature adults would willingly accept this slight inconvenience to themselves to protect the sensibilities of others and the innocence of children. This idiot and others like him would if they had any sense of consideration for others or responsibility for the general well being of children and the nation. Instead they say, in the vernacular of the street, "f-you...this is good for your kids!"
I beg to differ! But we can't ever hope to shove jerks like him back into his dark prurient closet unless we can inspire decent people who care about kids to begin to speak up and apply sufficient pressure. (Yes we still have that power; tea parties prove it.) We have witnessed generations of harm and ruined lives proportional to the increasing sleaze in mainstream entertainment. Lame, petulant, and childishly defiant excuses don't hold up under adult audit! Freedom requires a sense of responsibility to ourselves and to others. We must begin to hold them accountable.
If cigarette ads can be banned from television because "cigarettes kill" then sleazy sexual content can also be banned and for the same reason. STDs, AIDS, drug use, teen pregnancy and sexual addictions are all directly or indirectly tied to lowered standards and all have the potential to kill, if not explicitly then certainly in terms of quality of life and societal failure.
It's time to protect children and the future of our country by demanding a high level of decorum and excellence in mainstream entertainment.
One of the reasons I am off the cable is that I'm a "Law & Order" addict. Seriously, in all its permutations, a sicko show, and I will watch four in a row if you let me. But last night I was in Dad's apartment doing chores (he's in the hospital) and, four years after the "intervention", I had no trouble finding a cable channel running L&O episodes back-to-back.
And now! I find that USA Today is taking its editorial agenda from L&O episodes?!
We's in trouble people.
L&O eh? Well Libs as you must know by now that's been a fair part of my life. A street cop and then a detective. Long periods of tedious boredom intersperced with exquisite moments of heart pounding life and death drama. Oh, and I agree with you, we's in trouble!
I hope your dad is doing okay. Is he getting good care?
"From my perspective adults should have to go out of their way to purchase and view such explicit material."
Every network you listed in this article is something that adults do have to go out of their way to purchase.
I don't really care for any of the shows you listed. A lot of it is shameless pandering to hormones, and some of it is offensive even to me. But sometimes sexual content is done out of a genuine attempt to realistically depict aspects of life. I'm not saying "Spartacus" isn't doing most of the stuff it's doing for mere shock value, because I'm sure it is, but at the same time you could say that the weird sexual stuff was a big part of that society, and they are trying to do an accurate depiction of that. It's still a crappy show, but the sex is incidental to that, IMO, not the cause.
I agree that there is a lot of bad stuff on the tube, and a lot of the time there is a good reason to be offended by sexual content that isn't just about being a prude. But again, these are all cable shows, not network TV. People have the choice of whether to buy these channels and whether to allow their children to be exposed to this content. I find it strange that you mention the tea parties, which are all about taking the government out of our lives, in an article that asks the government to actually intervene more. The appropriate response to free speech that offends you if more free speech: boycotts, editorials, etc. Asking the government to step in and censor content that people have to pay to obtain is not the right approach. I find Rush offensive, and I think his messages are damaging to society. But I would never argue that he should be taken off the air, nor do I support measures such as the Fairness Doctrine.
And the comparison to smoking ads is a case that would never hold up in court. Television shows and movies are not advertisements. Their goal is to tell a story, not to implore people to behave in a certain way.
Tina you have an excellent point about cigarette ads on TV. Somehow we've decided that physical poison is bad but spriritual poison is okey dokie.
As a father of three kids I have to keep a strong vigil over our TV set. There are shows on network TV now that are simply unacceptable for children. Family Guy comes to mind as one, being a cartoon, that kids seem to think they should be able to watch. Not in my house.
I'm not as bothered by what is on premium channels. If a grown man wants to watch the Sopranos on HBO in the privacy of his living room, that's his right. But all adults should have the common sense to protect their children from that which is not suitable for them. Unfortunately, common sense is a fleeting virtue these days, just look at Congress.
"Family Guy comes to mind as one, being a cartoon, that kids seem to think they should be able to watch."
This one I catch during Scrabble games at my sister's house. My nephew (16) thinks it's hysterical. I find it painful to watch. My sister, the Scrabble Queen, takes 20 minute turns, and once during back-to-back showings of Family Guy I cracked up and had to be put in restraints while the channel was changed.
I think I could take it if they were making fun of people who did not exist ... but this is not the case. It models behavior for morons, of which we have way too many.
Well said Libby! Thank you. It sounds like you have a close family, I like that. For me family is everything, nothing comes before family, its our most valuable asset.
Do I understand correctly?
WHO would do the banning?
You want the GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE?
Please make up your mind.
Do you want LESS government?
Or, do you want MORE government?
You claim to be a teabagger. I hope you don't speak for them all.
REAL freedom-loving Americans don't even THINK about censroship!
Get real!
Quentin, I thought we had this all sorted out and settled. If you own Phillip Morris stock, you are against government intervention ... if you're trying to restrict your kid's access to the devil weed, you're all for government intervention.
Our conservative brethren bounce from one side of the fence to the other, repeatedly, on all our social issues, confuse themselves, and amuse the rest of us.
"...sometimes sexual content is done out of a genuine attempt to realistically depict aspects of life."
I'm guessing that by sexual content you are referring to relationship rather than explicit sexual acts. In that context a realistic depiction can be achieved within the bounds of decency. If the goal is to depict alternative relationship choices in a more responsible light then what I'm advocating would only help.
"But again, these are all cable shows, not network TV. People have the choice of whether to buy these channels and whether to allow their children to be exposed to this content."
This is an absolutely true statement. It also is a great excuse to have no standards whatsoever. The current very high level of sleaze was built upon the idea that "parents should be responsible for what they allow their kids to see". I agree but I also think that those who create entertainment have a moral and civic responsibility. We have lost a lot, as a society, since content moved away from products that are remarkable for their excellence, that is, they should inspire, uplift, teach, inform, and reflect values that assist young people in being inspired to greatness. Great literature, rather than porn, would be good. Michaelangelo's David is a naked statue but it is definitely not sleaze! Sleaze belongs in brown paper wrap!
"I find it strange that you mention the tea parties, which are all about taking the government out of our lives, in an article that asks the government to actually intervene more."
I didn't ask for government to do more. I asked citizens to do more. I cited peer pressure. Peer pressure brought changes to the laws regarding cigarette advertising. I thought those laws were silly. Pressure from nonsmokers had more to do with people giving up cigarettes than did changes in advertising. (That and the price of cigarettes). I'd like for the public to demand, through the power of their voices and wallets, a better product from the entertainment industry. When you consider that the biggest box office movies, the real money makers, are rated "G" it makes sense from a financial perspective that they should be making more general audience movies.
Rush is political/social opinion...NOT porn or sleaze...a totally different subject.
"Television shows and movies are not advertisements. Their goal is to tell a story, not to implore people to behave in a certain way."
That is exactly what they are when they hold no intrinsic value. This new venture into historical content as a backdrop is so transparent it's comical. Movies and TV teach, whether intended, accidental or incidental. They often teach on a deep psycological level...even more reason for concern. If the goal is simply to "tell a story" they miss the mark more often than not or they ruin a good story by inserting an content unnecessary to the story and inappropriate for general audiences.
I wanjt better from those who call themselves artists and I want to inspire artists to be better...is that so bad?
Quentin thanks for the questions...I appreciate your nconcern.
Do I understand correctly?
No...I don't think so gioven the rest of your questions.
WHO would do the banning?
I wan't suggestinjg "banning" anythin. I was suggesting the industry be pressured into becoming more self regulating and taking a more resoponsible civic approach.
You want the GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE?
NO.
Please make up your mind.
Do you want LESS government?
Or, do you want MORE government?
Please read more carefully and with less attitude. I never suggested government should intervene. Now, you could take the comparison to cigerettes as an indication that I did but that statement was made to show the power of citizens to effect change. I happen to think people would have given up cigarettes without the commercials being banned from TV.
You claim to be a teabagger. I hope you don't speak for them all.
I wouldn't dream of it! Tea Party Patriots are individuals. Lumping them together, as you do with that disgusting irreverant label, is to not know them at all.
REAL freedom-loving Americans don't even THINK about censroship!
Oh really? I beg to differ. The left side of the aisle have covertly and overtly sought to censor the right for fifty or sixty years in my experience. I wasn't suggesting censorship. I was suggesting personal and civic responsibility to future generations. I was suggesting that artists press themselves to a higher level of performance. Sleaze is a lazy cop out.
Get real!
What's real?
Libby: "If you own Phillip Morris stock, you are against government intervention ... if you're trying to restrict your kid's access to the devil weed, you're all for government intervention."
Now that's rich. Who pushes for government control and regulations on everything from business to the very air we breathe? Who thinks government is the be all and end all when it comes to controlling how people run their lives and their businesses? Who wants more control over content on the public airwaves? Who wants control over how much money anyone can make or pay their employees? Progressive democrats, that's who.
Progressives smugly take the position that it's up to parents to monitor everything their kids see on TV. Then they claim it takes a village to raise a child. Well which is it? You either have a sense of civic responsibility when it comes to children or you don't give a rip. So far I'd say the left doesn't give a rip.
A progressive would say we should all pay taxes for education because educated kids make for a better society. Isn't it the same for morality and decency? If we want children to mature in a healthy way isn't it important to have a sense of civic responsibility toward children whether or not we have children ourselves?
I don't care what adults do or what they watch. But I do care about the kind of society we create for our kids. I think we have taken a very cavalier attitude about exposing young kids to adult images and ideas long before they are (generally speaking) prepared to emotionally deal with them. The harm this attitude has done is quite evident in society today. It's time the adults started thinking about life beyond their own personal needs and wants. It does take a village to raise a child well. We do need to develop a social conscience, and especially if we don't want government intervention and intrusion.
Steve--"Somehow we've decided that physical poison is bad but spriritual poison is okey dokie."
The government has a legitimate interest in preventing physical harm to it's citizens. Spiritual harm is subjective and much harder to define, and the government has no business deciding what constitutes spiritual harm.
But I'm glad that liberals and conservatives have come together over the fact that "Family Guy" sucks. I used to watch it, until the writers had a character make what they apparently thought was a hilarious joke about rape. Revolting.
Tina, you really did seem to imply that these shows should be banned when you said:
"If cigarette ads can be banned from television because "cigarettes kill" then sleazy sexual content can also be banned and for the same reason."
But since apparently that is not what you meant, I see your point more. I too agree that artists of all kinds do have certain moral obligations. I am not saying that they should all be role models or that their primary purpose should be to teach moral lessons, but they should be held responsible when their messages are downright dangerous. I don't know if "Spartacus" falls in that category, as I personally am not easily offended by sexual content, although I wouldn't let a kid watch anything like that. But I can think of many shows and movies that do send dangerous messages to our youth, and that includes "Family Guy," which trivializes rape and dehumanizes women, minorities and people with disabilities all the time. Judd Apatow movies also tend to do this. Not to mention mainstream music. It isn't wrong to "expect more" from our media. In fact, that is the personal motto of feminist blogger Melissa McEwan, who has written extensively on dangerous media messages, although the things that offend her most are probably different than the things that offend you most. But we agree that there do need to be standards in Hollywood, and these standards need to be imposed by their customers, not by the government.
I'd like to add one more thing that probably should have been included in the article. My objections are motivated by a desire to protect kids from sleaze but I am also motivated by the desire to see artists stretch and become more creative. I'm motivated by the desire to see themes in movies, TV and music shift away from sexuality, which seems to be the only driving factor for most part, to themes that might offer some insiught into the human experience. what is the message when entertainment is mainly about sex (also violence)? Not much that's good.
Gotta go.....
For me, the problem isn't that these movies and shows are about sex. It's that their portrayal of sex is often unoriginal, juvenile, or kinky to an extent that most people can't actually relate to. Sex in itself is a part of the human experience, one that's important and worth discussing for a lot of people. But we can probably agree that there's no value in the portrayal of sex in, say, "The Hangover." And you are right, we should push our artists to become more creative.
I am not certain why you keep bringing up this "side of the aisle," or that "side of the aisle" BS.
As you well know, I don't play partisan politics, so just WHO are you talking to?
BOTH sides of the aisle have their collective heads where there is no sun.
Quentin: "I am not certain why you keep bringing up this "side of the aisle," or that "side of the aisle" BS."
Because there is a very BIG difference between the two parties regarding government intervention...if you can't see it you haven't looked. The left now has both feet firmly planeted in the big government, marxist socialist model of government. The right has not been very successful at holding back the trend toward bigger government (people have let us down-too much spending) but we still hold those "certain truths to be self evident" and favor individuals and small government.
As you well know, I don't play partisan politics, so just WHO are you talking to?
Yes Quentin, by now I all know that you are a special case. I know you refuse to indentify in any way with either "side of the aisle".
From now on you can just assume I'm not talking to you and feel better. I doubt that even you would presume to decide for everyone else whether I'm talking to them or not?
"BOTH sides of the aisle have their collective heads where there is no sun."
Thanks for sharing. What do you think the odds are that nobody was interested, inspired or moved by your ad nauseum, nonpartisan opinion?
I know you have more to contribute than this!
(interesting aside, the captcha words for this post are, "crying politics")
"From now on you can just assume I'm not talking to you"
I'm sorry, Tina.
The first part of your reply was an address to me, so I foolishly assumed you were replying to me!
I guess it's just like when you said working for a Party was the same as being non-partisan!
Some times I just can't figure out what it is you're trying to say. But then, I only know plain English!
I am flattered you find me "special." I can assure you, however, that MANY of us love our country--nothing special about it!
Quentin: "The first part of your reply was an address to me, so I foolishly assumed you were replying to me!"
I was replying to you:
The left thinks about censorship all the time. I keyed off of censorship rather than "freedom loving". Sorry for the error. You and I may be a little too much alike when it comes to saying what we mean to say...both a little picky and literal! I'm not always able to take the time to be as clear as I'd like.
"I am flattered you find me "special." I can assure you, however, that MANY of us love our country--nothing special about it!"
I was referring to your insistance that you don't play partisan politics when I said you were "special", Quentin. It was an attempt to mirror your position as being on the outside, able to be critical while having no real accountability...you know, special!
I have never suggested you don't love America...the question is what America do you love? You claim the mantle of the classic liberal (who can't find a home in modern politics) but surley in terms of ideals there is a side (party) that more closely mirrors your own.
Another question naturally follows. If it came down to the need to take a stand where would you find yourself? On the side that fights for the preservation of the Constitution or the progressive side with ideas of a living document and socialist/fascist moves like those who now hold the power in Washington?
You say the two major parties are no different; I disagree, they couldn't be more different in terms of principles and ideals. What Republicans need to do is make it clear to leadership how adament we are regarding those ideals.
Your attitude toward me and the articles I post suggest to me that I am somehow your enemy. It's the same response I get from many of those who fall on the progressive side. Not surprising...we are in a fierce battle. It would be easier to get you were you more willing to commit rather than standsing on the sidelines.
I speak and write in "plain english" and try to be clear. Frankly your own missives often make little sense to me; most of what you write is vague and noncommital unless it's meant to insult or dismiss...that you have mastered quite well!
I continue to believe you have a lot more to contribute. This fighting for our country as the founders intended is a big job; we can use every ounce of help we can get.
In the words of my newest bestest buddy Rahm Emanuel, your all a bunch of F ing Retards! The box has an off button and if that doesn't work you can unplug it from the wall!
I am sorry but you guys pissed me off when you bashed Family Guy. If your looking for a show with no "spin", no hidden agenda, in your face funny, Family Guy is it. If you can watch the show and not get one good gut busting, milk out your nose laugh, you need to have yourself checked.
One thing, is it just me are Peter Griffen and Michael Moore the same person?
When a TV show bothers people from both sides of the political divide it usually turns out to be one of my favorite shows. I guess that makes me the open minded one amongst us, go figure. Giggity!
Toby I don't watch Family Guy so I can't speak about that particular show. My article was about the general trend toward explicit sexual content and the lack of creative content that's suitable for children and families. There was a time when people had more respect for the children of America and I'd just like to see a return to that in our society. I wouldn't ban other programming but I would like that type of programming to be marketed so that adults could make more responsible choices and so that parents with children could have more suitable choices.
"The box has an off button and if that doesn't work you can unplug it from the wall!"
The position that they can turn it off or unplug it is fine as far as it goes but we aren't just talking about a few adult shows that run after 9:00 PM anymore. Now we're moving quickly toward anything goes anytime anywhere. At that point I'm moved to stand up and say enough!
This has nothing to do with being open minded. It has to do with growing up instead of playing the perpetual teenager. It has to do with having a sense of civic responsibility. It has to do with realizing that one of the quickest ways to tear down a society is to make sure children are devoid of knowledge, morals and values. It has to do with leaving kids out in a wilderness to survive on their own like rats. The more we accept responsibility as citizens in such matters the less need of government control, intrusion and services there will be.
Otherwise, your home is your castle Toby...spew all the milk you like.
Damned if I hadn't pegged Toby for a "Family Guy."
That's it, citizens ... "America" ... the end.
Have you ever considered adding more videos to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I mean I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good but since I'm more of a visual learner,I found that to be more helpful.