With regard to conservatives' distaste for the recent movie about Alfred Kinsey, John Hiscock and James Burleigh quote writer and director Bill Condon:
Bill Condon, writer and director, said protesters wanted to "pretend that the last 50 years didn't happen"[.]No, it's not that we want to pretend the past didn't happen, it's that we can clearly see the damage caused by some of the choices made by our predecessors and we'd like to undo it. As for Dr. Kinsey, it's clear that the experiments he performed on children in the 1940s and 1950s would be considered sexual abuse by modern standards. The Kinsey Institute denies that his research and data were based on child abuse, but rather on anecdotal evidence (so it's not science at all?).
The only pretenders are those who think the decades-long experiment of unrestrained sexuality has been anything but a monumental disaster.
What would you like to change about sexuality?
Mark: I'd like it to be less visible in the public arena, and I'd like to keep it away from kids.
I don't care if it's more or less visible in the public arena, but I agree that it should be kept away from kids.. if at all possible.
I think that is a parenting issue.
Mark: Well you can't have sex everywhere and yet also keep it away from kids, unless you think kids should be locked in the basement. Some parents nearly do that now, not letting their kids watch TV unsupervised or surf the net or go to movies, and it's unfortunate that they have to take such extreme (to me) steps to prevent their kids from seeing what we all, supposedly, agree that kids shouldn't see. I certainly don't want to control what adults see, but I don't mind slight burdens to speech (such as requiring a credit card number to see porn) in the interests of "protecting" kids.
Sex can remain as visible as it is and, at the same time, be kept from kids. Requiring a credit card number to see porn is a sensible precaution.
I don't think any government is qualified to determine what the acceptable level of exposure to sex is for children. I think it's a parenting thing. Beyond basic barriers like credit card verification, V-chips, and rating systems, I don't think the government should have any other part of it... and that the FCC's power and influence should be significantly reduced... if not completely disbanded altogether.
Mark: The choice seems pretty clear: either reduce the presence of sex in the public sphere, or reduce the presence of kids. I'd prefer to keep the kids around and put sex back mostly behind closed doors.
Did anyone catch this quote in the Independent article:
"Christians considering seeing the film have even been urged to "speak to your pastors immediately because Satan is attempting to enter your mind".
So let me get this straight. Some amazingly powerfull Footloose pastors out there in the dreaded red states used their brimstone to disuaded 2,500,000 people from seeing Alexander? (Alexander, the #6 movie at 2mm tickets vs. Trasure, the #1 at 4.5mm tickets).
Point is, I HIGHLY doubt the red state pastors have this pull and I HIGHLY doubt Messrs. Hiscock and Burleigh can even come up with an attribution of that statement. I think they made it up.
But how are you going to do this? What gives you or I the right to say that sex must go back behind closed doors? If we're talking about entertainment (TV, movies, music, etc.), don't we already have systems in place to warn people of what they're about to watch or listen to?
My point is that it's not the government's job (or within the government's purview) to restrict against what people can watch or listen to. The government does have an interest.. and a legitimate one at that.. in making people aware of what they're getting.. so parents can decide if they want their children to watch or listen. Ratings, credit card verification, etc. are all good things... but let's be clear about who has the burden of responsibility here.
Is it the government's job to dictate what entertainment can and cannot be produced? Is it the government's job to do parents' job for them?
I'm also not sure if it would be a good idea to try to put sex back behind closed doors... mainly because of the sheer futility of such an undertaking. In a free society, the government doesn't get to dictate what people can watch and listen to. Although there were governments that have done just that... and they're not democratic republics like ours.
Oops.. forgot to mention.. my comment, shown above, was for MW.
Mark: I'm not sure how you're missing my point. You wrote: "My point is that it's not the government's job (or within the government's purview) to restrict against what people can watch or listen to. ... Is it the government's job to dictate what entertainment can and cannot be produced? Is it the government's job to do parents' job for them?"
Well duh. I don't want to restrict what's produced, I only want to restrict how it's distributed. The laws of physics decree that broadcast television is available to everyone, and we have to conform our society to that reality. I'd rather have loose restrictions on public visibility of sex and allow kids in the public sphere than have no restrictions on visibility of sex and to keep the kids locked away.
I don't want the government to dictate what people watch and listen to, I want the majority to be free to craft the nature of public sphere in the way that suits them, and for the minority to be free to enjoy whatever they want in private.
MW: "I'd rather have loose restrictions on public visibility of sex and allow kids in the public sphere than have no restrictions on visibility of sex and to keep the kids locked away"
We already have those "loose restrictions".
MW: "I want the majority to be free to craft the nature of public sphere in the way that suits them, and for the minority to be free to enjoy whatever they want in private."
The thing, though, is that quite often what the minority enjoys becomes interesting to the majority.. and the majority makes it public. This is all driven by demand; who watches/listens/buys it and who doesn't. It's the free market system.
Mark: Too loose :) And yes, things enjoyed by the minority often break into the mainstream, and when the majority accepts them then fine. But the nature of the public sphere shouldn't be determined by the minority or the lowest common denominator.
MW: "But the nature of the public sphere shouldn't be determined by the minority or the lowest common denominator."
.. unless the majority lets it.
Mark: Well right, fine, and I'm arguing that the majority shouldn't let it and should, in fact, enact stricter controls over public sexuality. If the majority is not so inclined, then fine, but if they are then they should be able to have their way -- to a substantial degree, anyway.