> No good can come of pre-teens experimenting with
> sex, and that's exactly what MTV etc. encourage
> them to do.
Something tells me that people -- including pubescent young people -- are going to be interested in fucking no matter if MTV gives them "encouragement" or not.
What's more dangerous, MTV "encouraging" sexual urges that are already there -- and perhaps immediately channeling them into the safest form of sex ever devised, as Joycelyn Elders once pointed out to her detriment -- or the opposition to basic sex education and the spreading of ridiculous misinformation (e.g., "The pores in a condom are smaller than the HIV virus" -- a technically true but criminally misleading factoid that I once heard in an "Up With People"-style presentation by a group of religious lunatics fully funded by the school board, back when I was in high school) that so characterizes the "abstinence education" for which there is ample federal funding, thanks to the likes of Rick Santorum?
Not that I find MTV all that appealing. And as someone with decidedly old-school cultural tastes (those posts about right-wing punk-rockers not long ago were very alarming -- bad politics AND bad music? sheesh!), I take a "nothing's too good for the working class" view of these things, in the conviction that people deserve a lot better than this. I'm not sure that the really gratuitous stuff would be as prevalent as it is in a social system that would not be based on crude and rampant commodification. Or I hope not, anyway.
By the way, did anyone know that Paris Hilton has a new fragrance out? It's called "The Stench of Weimar."
(Kidding, kidding . . . )
- - - - - John Lacny
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!