Sunday, January 24, 2010

just an interesting thought (or a bit of a rant disguised as an interesting thought perhaps...?)

i am sure it comes as no surprise to the non-existent readers who still stop by this droplet of piss in the ocean of the world wide web (and i know you're out there) that i think sex is a beautiful thing.

yes, i understand that certain aspects of sex are ugly and disturbing and/or morally wrong, but for the most part, i think sex in all its different styles and proclivities is an amazing, beautiful, and yes, even exciting, thing.

except in the presence of children, i generally feel my own nakedness is not something to be ashamed of or hide. i don't feel that anyone else's nakedness is improper or inappropriate. i feel if it shocks you, bothers you, disgusts you, or offends you, you have the right to not look, leave, or even, in some cases, ask the offender to leave.

i guess in one form or another i have felt this way my entire life.

now, to the rub, o my droogs and only friends:

yesterday i was watching a movie with a group of friends. it was an effects blockbuster full of explosions, blood, gore, foul language, nudity, and sex acts. oddly enough, no drug use that i could recall, though it is implied that several of the characters are whacked out of their noggins. but i digress.

the thing that i find strange about all this is that a small group of young teen girls was also present as we watched the movie. every time a pair of boobs flashed across the screen, or characters were depicted in acts that might be considered sexual, their father would say, "eyes!" and they would dutifully cover their eyes and look away and wait for him to tell them it was safe to look again. and i am not judging the father at all for that. that's his right as a father, and in many cases the sex was what might be considered "deviant" and "wanton" and not necessarily the kind of input you would want a young teenage girl receiving.

but here's the deal: when soldiers were depicted getting blown up by rockets and their bloody parts scattered to the four winds; nothing. when one of the characters' head was exploded from her body in a scattering of gristle; nothing. when another person gets mowed down by a vehicle; nothing.

it is traditional in this, the united states of america, to be blase about violence. to be inured to it's sting. it's ok for a 13-year-old girl to watch characters on a screen not only battle each other and die, but to do so in violent and extreme ways. we almost cheer it on. and maybe that's fine.

but suddenly it's not ok for a girl of thirteen, who is already beginning to sprout her own set, to see a pair of breasts bared on the screen? to see two ladies kissing without their tops on? to see someone moon others out of the window of a car?

again, the sex and nudity portrayed in this movie had a bent to it that i also agree is not appropriate for a young teen girl. but then, i would deem the whole movie inappropriate for a young teen girl, hence the rating of "r". but i have watched many movies with this group of people and it is always the same: the violence is acceptable, almost lauded. but nudity and sex, regardless of how loving and open and innocent and reaffirming it might be, is not.

and i personally believe, o my beloved non-existent readers, that therein lies the quintessential problem with the u.s. violence is good, acceptable, the appropriate measure; love, lust, and sexual excitement never is.

i sure hope that one day we can tip that scale the other direction.

thanks for playing along.

darth sardonic

Labels: , , ,


Blogger lady macleod said...

OH this is a rant I have long had my own little self. You rate the movie R for sex but not for bloodletting? If we make sex, in all its wonderful forms and outlets, unclean in some way - it will be. If we give the teaching that your body is to be respected and admired, as is that of others (especially those you love!) it will be. So say I.

5:25 PM  
Blogger darth sardonic said...

agreed, 100% m'lady

3:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home