Friday, December 09, 2005

Primetime Pornography

People who pay for pornography are stupid. Not because pornography is a moral lapse of judgment. Not because pornography and the pornography industry objectifies women and treats them as means to male satisfaction. Not because pornography encourages lust, fuels infidelity, and equates love and sex with eroticism. No, they are stupid to pay for porn because porn is now free thanks to Victoria's Secret.

Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt ought to be livid that Victoria is sharing her secrets for free. Why would anyone purchase an "adult" magazine when the Victoria's Secret catalog is free? And why would anyone purchase an "adult" video when the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is broadcast for free on CBS?

Excuse the double tangent here, but isn't CBS the network that was chastised seriously by the FCC for the infamous Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction of 2004? If that was a wardrobe malfunction then what is this Fashion Show? A wardrobe dysfunction? I do not understand the moral calculus: 0.57 seconds of Janet Jackson's exposed breast is somehow more offensive and less acceptable than one hour of women in see-through underwear. Well, I never was good at calculus. And for my other tangent, why are magazines and videos that seem to be very immature and adolescent in content labeled "adult?"

I suppose someone might defend the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show by noting that it is about the clothing. Really? Then why are there not more fashion shows by the Burlington Coat Factory featured on primetime television? I don't keep up with the world of fashion but what was the last fashion show televised in primetime on a major network?

I must congratulate CBS for their cleverness. I suppose the FCC would fine them out of existence if they were to broadcast performances of strippers dancing on a pole, but CBS was clever enough to find out that if you get rid of the pole and call it a fashion show then it is no longer X-rated.

I wonder if this show is targeted at women or men. The product is for women, right? And women are generally more interested in fashion, yes? I expect CBS to apply this ambiguous logic to a Chippendale's Dancers Home Improvement show. I am sure the handymen will tune in for that. Hey, let's just call them all family shows and invite the kids to watch.

And that reminds me. . . Why isn't anyone upset that Victoria's Secret and CBS chose to call this a "holiday" themed show rather than a Christmas themed show? Just more of the continuing war against Christmas I guess.

2 comments:

Chris Benjamin said...

Okay. I am making the first comment on this article. I realize it may seem that I am making light of pornography and sexual immorality. I certainly do not take these lightly and the intent is to indicate the seriousness of the problem with wit. If you haven't read Written Without Ink before then you need to realize that my writing is often satirical and ironic.

I am not doing this for a laugh, I am doing it to indicate the hypocrisy and duplicity that so often marks our culture. I think the moral depravity of our culture is lamentable. I also think it is lamentable that the only response many people of character find acceptable is lecture and vicious tirade. For too long the opponents of moral conviction have ridiculed people of faith and virtue as hypocritical, unimaginative blowhards. I think it is time we wield the sword of wit to skewer the pretentions of those who take no responsibility for their corruption of culture and character.

Still, if you found my article offensive please fire away at it, but please be creative and perhaps witty, okay?

David said...

Hello Chris,

This made me think. All my life I thought it was just natural for Christians to be concerned about the sexual lives of everyone else; that’s our “right” as followers of Jesus, right? I mean, where is the fun of religion if you can’t disapprove of other peoples’ sexuality? But the more I think about Jesus, the more I see that he didn’t get as involved in other folks’ bedrooms as he did in their kitchens or hospital rooms.

Sure the Victoria’s Secret TV show was about getting as many viewers as possible; what better way to do that than with sex. (Is it really a surprise that sex sells?) Why not a Burlington Coat factory special? Because no one wants to watch middle-aged fat men in suits and overcoats. Why do we constantly act so surprised when we see that sex motivates us? So many live in denial of this and act as though they are surprised to see that we are sexual beings--there are 6 zillion people on the planet because we are such sexual beings! It appears that God made us this way. So does it help us by denying our human-ness or acting surprised every time we see our human-ness manifested?

What is the value of worrying about what is on TV? I have never really been all that concerned about what CBS or ABC or the Spice Channel shows anyway because I have the choice over what I watch. I did not watch the Victoria’s Secret show because I simply chose not to. If I were to worry about what others watch, I think I would worry myself to death.

Still thinking,
David