One of the subjects the movie takes on is this insane notion that this:
is more offensive and harmful to the American citizens than this:
Chainsaw MassacreWhy is the United States so ANTI SEX but PRO VIOLENCE? Why do we allow our children to view violence without second thought but sex, something that every human being must do naturally, is seen as harmful and offensive.
It is a great documentary.
Cross Posted at Rocketstar's Thoughts on Life
7 comments:
It's weird because while people get their panties in a knot about actual sex, the alluding to sex or dressing a 13 year old girl up like a hooker seems to be A-OK.
But I agree with you point - on the whole violence is more acceptable than sex. I think Michael Moore tried to answer the question re:violence in Bowling for Columbine, but never really came up with a good answer. We get the same TV as you do here, yet don't seem to be nearly as violent. Why is that?
I think the sex thing probably goes back to your Puritan roots - its a sin and all that baloney.
I don't know, I'm not thinking too straight tonight.
Possibly the same reason that lying about sex is an impeachable offence but lying about war isn't. Here's a thought (and there's little evidence that I can offer): sex, as an extension of love, is about bringing people together (normally two, but whatever floats your boat) whereas violence is about division—one side against another. Do The Powers That Be have an interest in promoting entertainment that divides and limiting that which brings us together? I'm probably talkin' outta my ass on this, but so be it …
Cletus, I like your thinking.
Me, I like George Carlin's take on this. He wants to take the word "kill" and replace it with the word "fuck" in all those old movie cliches.
"Well, Sheriff...we're gonna FUCK ya now....but...we're gonna FUCK ya SLOW."
"MAD FUCKER ON THE LOOSE!!! CATCH HIM BEFORE HE FUCKS AGAIN!!!"
"Fuck the ump! Fuck the ump! Fuck the ump!"
Personally, I'd much rather my kid see two people having sex (why do they call it making love? Isn't the love already made?) than two people blowing each others' heads off. Of course, I never let *that* info slip to the social worker when we were being scrutinized for adoption.
Quoting George Carlin is instant credibility to me. :D There are comedians out there who are as funny as him, but few who are as insightful and as, well, serious about comedy's higher purpose. The only thing that compares with his observations about language are his observations about religion.
The degree of acceptance sex and or violence has in one's society is deeply embedded in culture and law. In Canada we have relatively few homicides involving guns, yet I do not believe that Canadians as a whole are any more or less capable of shooting another than our American neighbours. Fact is our gun laws severely limit access so when we get pissed off we are more likely to stab or punch you.
The right to arms is a cultural value (i.e.NRA) protected within American laws.
Unless laws are challenged and changed, the culture remains static. Prior to the rise of organized dissent among America's Blacks in the late 50's and 60's, it was a legal and a cultural norm for thousands to refuse Blacks the right to vote, integrate with white schools, etc.
People are born, fucked genetics aside, neutral to all of the hot issues they will be living with or challenging as adults. We are born into a specific culture and most of us, at least initially, accept without question the behaviours linked to it.
To change culture you must change laws.
Slowly, in both the U.S. and Canada, laws relating to censorship in film, have been changing to a more liberal acceptance of both. In the classic old TV sitcom, I Love Lucy, it was considered inappropriate to use the word "pregnant" even though Lucy did have a pregnancy during some of the episodes. Several years later Archie Bunker took one small step for All In The Family and one giant leap for liberalism within the media.
You've got things backwards—laws flow from culture, not the other way around. At least in a healthy society where behaviour is not dictated from above, regardless of the masses' wishes. To take but one example, the prohibition on alcohol in the 20s and early 30s. It was never accepted by the majority of Americans because it went against centuries of culture. Legal segregation and other restrictions on blacks' freedoms in the US was achieved by altering the culture, by demonstrating gradually and in more areas to a significant part of the general population that such restrictions were wrong. Only then did the laws change.
Post a Comment