>John Gulick wrote:
>
>>Brain rot, dissipation of the critical faculties, vicariously identifying
>>with conspicuous consumption of Moet and Benzes as the end-all and be-all
>>of life, getting sucked into the fantasy that sporting nipple rings and
>>tats makes you some kind of "cultural rebel" (yeah, nipple rings and tats
>>brandishes by Texas A&M's starting offensive line). Jeezus, I thought you
>>admired Tom Frank.
>
>I do, and he's a friend of mine as well, but how much does what you list
>have to do with sex on TV? Why couldn't people just enjoy Janet Jackson's
>tit? Why did it have to become such a goddam scandal?
>
>Doug
Is it the tit being shown (on MTV, not Janets) that are peoples concern or the context? I could care less if nudity itself was on broadcast TV but the idea that the body is a commodity for sale is bothersome. I haven't exactly decided where I stand on this issue but none of the arguments pro or con so far seem very persuasive. Each side seems to be arguing about something slightly different. Healthy open sexual relationship shown in the media would seem harmless except to prudish individuals but exploitative images that work to reinforce unhealthy body images and promote ideas that are damaging to relationship building would seem inappropriate for children and adolescents. Pre-teens are sexual persons even if that makes their parents uncomfortable, but it is a parents job to set boundaries. Forbidding a pre-teen to act out any sexual feeling is almost impossible except in an unhealthy overly controlling relationship. That is hardly a free reign for media to encourage pre-teens to act older than they are and take on adult responsibilities they are ill prepared to handle. I don't seem to be able to get a handle on what exactly people here are arguing either for or against. Americans seem way more hung up on issues like this other cultures. I wonder why? Are the boundaries set in American culture less concrete and well known to children and adolescents than in other cultures?
John Thornton