View Full Version : Explicit vs Implicit Pornography: censors are idiots, kids aren't innocent or stupid

10-07-2012, 07:39 AM
Case 1: Adult Music
Tom Lehrer's "Masochism Tango" is never seen anywhere near minors but under a more observant eye is not actually as bad as at first glance, it is a sarcastic comedy not meant to be taken seriously.

On the other hand "The Moth" by Aimee Mann doesn't have swearing or vivid descriptions of any salicious act but a well informed listener will catch the subtext very quickly.
I first heard her works in my classroom in middle school.
It was a very authoritarian school and that same school refused to let me play the actual children's album "cheech the school bus driver" because it might contain a drug reference, after all it was written by cheech marin.
Any joke involving sex, even if not demeaning and not commenting on someone in the school community, would invariably result in an in school suspension, the student if male would get a dehumanizing talking-to about sexual harassment that would accuse the boy of seeing women as "a piece of meat"

The content standards used by the mainstream music industry are downright silly.
Take the non age restricted song "your love is my drug" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKxQEwM8zMI
that every stalking victim can testify is far more disturbing than this "indecent" adult parody http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFqjI4I5AKM.

Exhibit B: visual media

This episode of Ranma 1/2 a martial arts/harem comedy/rom-com/alternate physics/fantasy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L63XRbwdr20 doesn't show privates but does have some more indiscreet imagery. A paralysis-powder laced bouquet wielding young woman in a form fitting leotard who will never let you look at a gymnastics ribbon the same way again sets her sights on the unexpected "mr right"
Safe-sane-consentual doesn't go out the window because it was never there to begin with, and to top it all off the characters are both under 18 but it's a-ok to show to minors because noones naughty bits get shown, right, right. (what on earth were they thinking)

But you can get sent to jail as a sex offender in some places for selling a copy of playboy to a teenage boy because you "furnished blatant pornography to a minor".

And you can sell first person shooter games to 8 year olds as long as there isn't realistic gore. Non messy mortal wounds are counterproductive in protecting children's minds because sanitized killing makes killing look less harmful, a less extreme act than it actually is and teaches exactly that message to children who often have a poor understanding of real violence.
That isn't harmful to minors but exposed breasts are? are you kidding me?

In reality neither explicit nor implicit sex should get the kind of restrictions and censorship they currently get. People who say underage (varies from state to state and every state has different exceptions to boot) teens need to be shielded from sex cause far more harm than they could ever dream of preventing, and tend to have no clue about what goes on in the adolescent brain. Mandatory abstinence only "education" has gallons of blood on its hands. I could go on for books worth on this topic but suffice it to say I wouldn't have any objections at all to a 12 year old viewing ranma.

Retaliation; or The Dawning of Reality and (hopefully) Reason:
Once a year the policies get turned upside down for banned books week, which in my neck of the woods is taken as seriously by some as Easter to 16th century Catholics. The schools and bookstores get flooded with controversial and mature subject matter speech and everyone is expected to act like mature adults. The kids tend to be more mature about things than many of the ban promoting adults, and that is one of the big messages to the whole event.
2008 saw it taken past its logical extreme to its true absolute. A 2004 law that apparently was supposed to protect children by defining among other things obscene paintings, drawings, illustrated books, stained glass, and statues of anyone under 18 as child pornography to be prosecuted as such. It was struck down under the first amendment and some moral guardians took the law, sprinkled "artistic merit" and "community standards" on it, tacked it to the amber alert bill (which makes gullible parents comfortable but doesn't actually save anyone, but that's another story) and got it passed.
A law that was still on the books allowed the feds to subponea library records and give a comprehensive eternal legally binding gag order to everyone involved was starting to get a lot of press.
My local library hit back like harder than anyone's wildest imagination and put Karin on the shelves, the titular character being a 15 year old friendly neighborhood vampire whose bites are often strongly physically pleasurable to both involved and are beneficial instead of harmful to the bitten, who is is explicitly shown biting a neck for the first time at age 11, not as an act of predation/feeding but in the cliche forget the laws of gravity flowers and stars with halos around them hovering everywhere background frame. Besides her all other vampires in the storyline need to have in the literal sense, small amounts of blood needed as food to keep any vampire past early puberty alive.
When they didn't get what they wanted and were threatened with enforcement of a law preventing libraries from giving pornography to minors they transferred all 14 volumes of Karin to the young adult room next to calvin and foxtrot and peanuts. Anyone who knows much about libraries knows full well that "young adult" when speaking of literature isn't for actual adults but for the middle school crowd, the section only existing to make it easier to separate older kids books from See Spot Run.
A local Barnes and Nobel went even further, publishing a comic called Boy Princess (the main characters ages being between 11 and 13) and selling it without plastic wrap 10 feet from the entry to the children's room on the shelf opposite the usual marvel and dc fare.

The schools and indeed the police thought this was a good thing because the above materials were (accurately) seen as less traumatizing to children as many of the books being assigned for book reports. Number the Stars was on the required reading list for fifth grade, the gifted-talented program had sixth graders giving themselves nightmares with Sook Choi's Year of Impossible Goodbyes.

Domestic violence, STD's, and unwed pregnancy and nonemergency abortions barely exist in our town, The kids are not damaged by learning too much to young, they are armed with knowledge long before it is too late.

10-07-2012, 09:57 AM
That a pretty comprehensive description of the world we live in, today.

When I was a kid the most famous book to be banned from schools was Catcher in the Rye.

10-07-2012, 12:31 PM
In school I remember the kids passing around "Lady Chatterlys Lover".

Tom Montgomery
10-07-2012, 02:19 PM
When I was in school I remember this from 1967: