Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Wasn't sure where to put this, but since it involves policy I picked here.
An older blog I wrote concerning what we consider morally outrageous. Since much is being made about the Duck Dynasty flap it feels like the time to post it.
It seems that what we in the United States choose to care about changes over time. In decades past, you couldn't show movies with lip kissing that lasted longer than three seconds. So to get around it, filmmakers would show many kisses one after another, or cut from one to another with shots of some innocuous object like a potted plant. And of course any depiction of sex itself was strictly forbidden. But since this was what people wanted to see, they made Biblical stories that has sex and sexuality in them, however vague or metaphorical. Or sometimes not metaphorically at all. I remember one scene in particular where a wife tells her husband, "Come into me husband..." And they begin to have sex. And since it was a Bible story the religious censors of the time I guess couldn't object to it. (As an aside, why religious people are often the ones objecting to sex is beyond me as the Bible's full of sex. Ever read the Song of Solomon?)
Then the 60s came along and for a while everything changed. I guess that's to be expected when children notice the hypocrisy around them and end up rebelling against parents and authorities so obviously full of shit. Drugs like psychedelics obviously have something to do with this period in our history. But I suspect it's far beyond just a lot of unihibited youths experimenting with new things. In reality, old things simply forgotton by the mainstream until rediscovered or rewrapped by their own contemporaries.
The Summer of Love, love-ins, commune experiments, and other non-conventional lifestyles define the late 60s for the USA. Movies too changed noticeably insofar as content. Nov 1, 1968 marked the date the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) was born and paradoxically, movies got worse from this point on. As with the more recent ratings system imposed onto music, when you give entertainment media a ratings for content, all you achieve is giving license to producers of content to be as naughty as they wanna be. Prior to a ratings system, content may not be bought up, distributed, etc. if it contains objectionable content. But if objectionable content can simply be labelled as such then there's no longer any reason to exercise self-restraint. As soon as music got their labels, all self-restraint and good taste went out the window. And but for a few exceptions, there's no downside imposed by the industry on 'mature' content. Some chains of retailers claim they wont sell 'mature' rated content, but I"m not sure how serious they are about it.
Most recently, video/computer games have gotten ratings of their own. Predictably, games have become more violent as with the notorious Grand Theft Auto series.
What we choose to care about in the US should be of tremendous concern to everyone. Not just religious fundamentalists, parents, or politicians. Because behind the troubling trend of graphic violence in movies, games, and music lies something I think is insidious. We seem to have flipped what pisses us off enough to take action. Rather than being outraged by violence, our outrage only seems to manifest around sexual issues. Sex is the nicest, most beautiful thing people can do with each other. Far better I think than ripping one another apart, shooting someone with a shotgun, or hacking off limbs and heads. Yet while Janet Jackson's famous 'wardrobe malfunction' during a Superbowl became a national if not international news item for days, we seem to have no compunction about showing movie trailers for the latest "Saw" or "Hostel" movie. But for the "Girls Gone Wild" commercials and infomercials late at night, there's no instance of any overtly sexual media getting commercial tv ad time. Ever wonder why? I have, and I have a theory.
First, we have to ask who stands to benefit from switching moral outrage from violence to sex. Obviously, the producers and distributors of any content benefit from its' release, but it's go beyond that I think. And with greater implications and deeper reasons. Some basic first-year psychology first: Fearful people are easier to control than non-fearful people. Fearful people often feel powerless over their own fate and circumstances. In order to alleviate their fear and feeling of powerlessness they'll do whatever they can to choose their own fate again. Most commonly this manifests as eating 'comfort foods' or buying things. Without fear entities which exist solely to earn profits earn less. So by deemphasizing violence and restricting it, we allow people to view or experience it and become fearful. This benefits everyone from the sellers of the content itself, to the providers of the solutions the fearful ones will then seek out to be less fearful.
In contrast to having an entertainment system filled with explicit sex and pleasure where we view strangers as potential sex partners and relationships and have no fear of "them." If the genral public doesn't feel afraid of every bump in the night (rectified btw by any of the security systems featured in primetime commercials,) or ex-boyfriend, or potential home invader who just kicked in your front door as you were walking around your home clad only in a bathtowel; then companies offering solutions earn less profit.
The most cruel, obscene, gratuitous violent images get commercial time around the clock on every channel on our tvs. Yet almost without exception, positive, happy, consensual sexual acts do not. It's a MORAL OUTARGE that the best thing people can do with other people is effectively censored and controversial, while the absolute worst and universally illegal ones are on every channel 24/7.
An older blog I wrote concerning what we consider morally outrageous. Since much is being made about the Duck Dynasty flap it feels like the time to post it.
It seems that what we in the United States choose to care about changes over time. In decades past, you couldn't show movies with lip kissing that lasted longer than three seconds. So to get around it, filmmakers would show many kisses one after another, or cut from one to another with shots of some innocuous object like a potted plant. And of course any depiction of sex itself was strictly forbidden. But since this was what people wanted to see, they made Biblical stories that has sex and sexuality in them, however vague or metaphorical. Or sometimes not metaphorically at all. I remember one scene in particular where a wife tells her husband, "Come into me husband..." And they begin to have sex. And since it was a Bible story the religious censors of the time I guess couldn't object to it. (As an aside, why religious people are often the ones objecting to sex is beyond me as the Bible's full of sex. Ever read the Song of Solomon?)
Then the 60s came along and for a while everything changed. I guess that's to be expected when children notice the hypocrisy around them and end up rebelling against parents and authorities so obviously full of shit. Drugs like psychedelics obviously have something to do with this period in our history. But I suspect it's far beyond just a lot of unihibited youths experimenting with new things. In reality, old things simply forgotton by the mainstream until rediscovered or rewrapped by their own contemporaries.
The Summer of Love, love-ins, commune experiments, and other non-conventional lifestyles define the late 60s for the USA. Movies too changed noticeably insofar as content. Nov 1, 1968 marked the date the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) was born and paradoxically, movies got worse from this point on. As with the more recent ratings system imposed onto music, when you give entertainment media a ratings for content, all you achieve is giving license to producers of content to be as naughty as they wanna be. Prior to a ratings system, content may not be bought up, distributed, etc. if it contains objectionable content. But if objectionable content can simply be labelled as such then there's no longer any reason to exercise self-restraint. As soon as music got their labels, all self-restraint and good taste went out the window. And but for a few exceptions, there's no downside imposed by the industry on 'mature' content. Some chains of retailers claim they wont sell 'mature' rated content, but I"m not sure how serious they are about it.
Most recently, video/computer games have gotten ratings of their own. Predictably, games have become more violent as with the notorious Grand Theft Auto series.
What we choose to care about in the US should be of tremendous concern to everyone. Not just religious fundamentalists, parents, or politicians. Because behind the troubling trend of graphic violence in movies, games, and music lies something I think is insidious. We seem to have flipped what pisses us off enough to take action. Rather than being outraged by violence, our outrage only seems to manifest around sexual issues. Sex is the nicest, most beautiful thing people can do with each other. Far better I think than ripping one another apart, shooting someone with a shotgun, or hacking off limbs and heads. Yet while Janet Jackson's famous 'wardrobe malfunction' during a Superbowl became a national if not international news item for days, we seem to have no compunction about showing movie trailers for the latest "Saw" or "Hostel" movie. But for the "Girls Gone Wild" commercials and infomercials late at night, there's no instance of any overtly sexual media getting commercial tv ad time. Ever wonder why? I have, and I have a theory.
First, we have to ask who stands to benefit from switching moral outrage from violence to sex. Obviously, the producers and distributors of any content benefit from its' release, but it's go beyond that I think. And with greater implications and deeper reasons. Some basic first-year psychology first: Fearful people are easier to control than non-fearful people. Fearful people often feel powerless over their own fate and circumstances. In order to alleviate their fear and feeling of powerlessness they'll do whatever they can to choose their own fate again. Most commonly this manifests as eating 'comfort foods' or buying things. Without fear entities which exist solely to earn profits earn less. So by deemphasizing violence and restricting it, we allow people to view or experience it and become fearful. This benefits everyone from the sellers of the content itself, to the providers of the solutions the fearful ones will then seek out to be less fearful.
In contrast to having an entertainment system filled with explicit sex and pleasure where we view strangers as potential sex partners and relationships and have no fear of "them." If the genral public doesn't feel afraid of every bump in the night (rectified btw by any of the security systems featured in primetime commercials,) or ex-boyfriend, or potential home invader who just kicked in your front door as you were walking around your home clad only in a bathtowel; then companies offering solutions earn less profit.
The most cruel, obscene, gratuitous violent images get commercial time around the clock on every channel on our tvs. Yet almost without exception, positive, happy, consensual sexual acts do not. It's a MORAL OUTARGE that the best thing people can do with other people is effectively censored and controversial, while the absolute worst and universally illegal ones are on every channel 24/7.
Last edited: