- Post
- #286849
- Topic
- Don Imus and the race issue thread.
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/286849/action/topic#286849
- Time
Of course I know depictions of underage people having sex do exist, but I'm tying to get you guys to think past blind rhetoric. Not only are they a small minority of programming, they're certainly not being portrayed in an encouraging manner. The vast majority of the time, TV depicts teenagers who develop one problem or another as a result of sex, or are assholes to start with. And therein lies my point: It is a Hasty Generalization to say that the media is encouraging underaged kids to have sex. If it's a problem at all, it's an exaggerated one ... what any researcher would call a "statistical outlier."
In fact, the vast majority of sex-driven plots on TV, no matter what the age of the characters, revolve around the complications that arise as a result of casual sex. For example, arguably the raciest network show that's currently on the air is Grey's Anatomy. That show practically depicts Musical Bedsheets, yet virtually every one of those characters are screwed up because they keep sleeping around. The one well-adjusted character (Dr. Bailey, the "mom" figure) is the only one who isn't banging some other character.
(For the record, I pretty much hate Grey's Anatomy but because my wife watches it I know way too much about what's going on.)
I could probably come up with fifty examples of sex on TV screwing up the lives of the characters for every one example that can be given of sex being depicted in a healthy light, even among of-age participants. And I have yet to hear any examples of healthy sex being depicted in the lives of minors. If anybody thinks the shallow, vapid lives of the kids on The O.C., Dawson's, or the great-grandaddy of all Teen Steam programming 90210 are role models, then that beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder ... and I ain't beholding it. These shows, the closest examples of what you're getting at (and thankfully cancelled and no longer polluting our airwaves), had very few characters worthy of emulation. I personally never watched the swill because it looked like crap, but that's no matter. They are called "guilty pleasures" for a reason: They are known to be crap and hold little to no redeeming value; people watch them in spite of that, not because of it. It's why people like Pamela Anderson continue to find work.
The great irony in all of this is that those who are most vocal about keeping the government out of private lives are the quickest to call for the government to clean up TV. AND these are the same people who bemoan PBS' existence and wish its death, failing to recognize it for providing the safest, cleanest, most child-friendly programming on TV. Compare PBS to what the commercial networks show during the daytime while toddlers are awake, sick kids are at home, and in the hours immediately after elementary children return home from school. PBS is showing content that is entertaining and educational to the developing mind while the others are showing soap operas, the lowest of casual-sex filled tripe polluting our airwaves.
I'm all for the freedom of choice, as I'm quite capable of choosing what gets watched by my kids and what doesn't. They get a rationing of PBS Sprout and the occasional binge on some classic cartoons with Daddy (Looney Tunes, Pink Panther, classic Disney, etc.) if it doesn't interfere with school or chores. They know Mom and Dad watch "grown-up shows" after bedtime and respect that. And I'll be quite capable of letting them choose what they watch when they help contribute to the household budget. In the mean time, I try to help instill some values in them that will allow them to distinguish between good content and bad content. But if the day arises they can't make appropriate viewing choices while living under my roof, I will have no problems disconnecting the TV altogether.
