I fail to understand a country so against abortion yet free sex everywhere is perfectly acceptable. We don’t try to censor TV or movies which keeps raising the bar on shock value, but we want to outlaw abortion, just like prohibition.
We don’t speak out against the media to send them a message to reform itself, but we’re right there to tell a woman what she can and cannot do. The real irony is the same people who say they want less government also want the government to solve this problem (as if it even can). They never speak up against what’s happening on TV because that’s censorship, right? But, they’re there to tell a person how to run their life.
If these people would focus their energies to place enough pressure on Hollywood to shape up, maybe you wouldn’t need to government to pass such (unenforceable) laws against abortion in the first place! Maybe people would make wiser choices. In short, censorship of fantasyland is bad, but censorship of real people with real problems is ok, right?
It just doesn’t add up to me…
Jinx
Moderators, feel free to bump to Great Debates, if necessary.
A lot of effort has actually been put toward censoring TV. V-chips and wardrobe malfunctions, remember? The FCC can now levy some very heavy fines (over $100,000 in some cases) if anyone files a complaint that they saw or heard something offensive.
Movies aren’t censored, but they are rated, and as many have pointed out, the MPAA ratings groups are far stricter on sex and nudity than they are on violence. “Show a man stabbing a woman’s breast, it’s a PG-13; show him kissing it, it’s an R.”
However, at the same time, there’s a huge demand for sex. As you say, Hollywood keeps raising the bar on shock value. But that doesn’t happen in a vacuum: lots of people go to see movies with lots of shock value, so producers back movies that have even more shock value, and those end up attracting even more viewers. If everyone were universally disgusted by it, these movies wouldn’t be making money.
Personally, I think this mixed attitude results in sex being something that everyone thinks of as secret and forbidden (despite its being everywhere), which gets in the way of a lot of kids getting realistic educations about the facts, risks, pleasures and responsibilities that sex entails. And if it weren’t for that, a lot of abortions being performed now wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place, IMO.
'course, I can’t claim to have any understanding of the US anymore.
We seem to be in agreement. …Wish I were with you in Tokyo!
And, the first thing the GOP ought to clean up (while they’re cleaning up this country) is Bush’s household and the lack of upbringing his raunchy daughters demonstrate before inflicting his high values(?) :rolleyes: on the rest of US! (pun intended, folks!)
I don’t want a censored TV. I am all for making it as easy as possible for people to control waht they watch and what their kids watch but I do not support censorship.
And TV sex is only a small part of abortion. Sex education (which may not be possible if it weren’t for the fact that sex is everpresent in our society) prevents alot of abortions. So sex on TV is both good and bad for abortion. Bad because it encourages the idea of sex and good because it makes discussion about contraceptives easier to do.
I agree with that. I think one problem that faces the US but not as much in other nations is that we are far less homogonous than most countries. We have people all over the spectrum withall sorts of cultural values, it’s much harder to find a consensus. Things are changing, though. What’s acceptable as far as nudity on TV is way past what people would have accepted 10 or 20 years ago.
What the hell are you talking about? The “same people”? In many cases the same people who want abortion banned are also in favour of media censorship (not always, but probably a bit more reasonable overgenerazation than yours).
And we’re against abortion? The majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal.
And finally, human beings managed to make unwise choices about sex for thousands of years before Hollywood. No, there weren’t as many abortions, more forced marriages and infanticide. Ah, the good old days.
The people who most want abortion to remain legal are the Republican leadership. What would the Republicans have to rally around if not abortion? It is the only thing the fiscal wing has in common with the social wing. If Roe v. Wade were struck down, it would galvanize opposition on the left, and leave the Republican party split.
In the last 20 years, the Republicans have paid lip service to the concerns of the religious right, and if you notice the battles they choose to fight are the ones that have no chance of actually winning - Prayer in schools, flag burning amendments, gay marriage amendment, etc. It is too hard to get a constitutional amendment passed, and they would all be struck down by the Supreme court anyway.
Abortion, on the other hand, is one they could actually win. Roe v. Wade has some real weaknesses, legally speaking, and could be struck down. Therefore, the republicans won’t do it. It would create a civil war in the party.
Personally, I want more nudity and less NASCAR, but in the end isn’t it up to the market? Hollywood (and Nashville for that matter) does what it does because people pay money to see it.