Monday, April 29, 2013

Backward Ethics

I'm often struck by the backward ethics in this world.

I've written about this a few times. Usually, I see the problem in broadcast or Internet media. For instance, the other day, my son (11 years), who is deeply interested in medieval things, had clicked on the movie Braveheart. It was on one of the regular channels; one that edits films for language, nudity, etc. Still, I was a little reticent to let him watch, mostly because of the extreme violence in the film...but I hesitated. I was just about to pull the plug, when a scene started, in which William Wallace's wife is attacked by an English soldier.

I had forgotten about the nature of this scene. He attempts to rape the girl. Like a fool, I thought: Well, they will cut this short... But, no, they didn't. Why not? I guess because nothing "showed." There was no nudity. That, I presume, made it okay to show a guy holding down a girl, ripping at her clothing and licking her cheek on TV at noon on a Saturday.

As long as you can't see the human body, right? At any rate, I had to explain to my son what the guy was doing. I did my best, but it is not a situation a father wants to find himself forced into.

Imagine if we allowed natural images of the human body to be on TV and we cut depraved and violent behavior out of Saturday afternoon programming. I know -- it is crazy.

We all know Facebook is quite pious when it comes to nudity, too. Put up a pic of you and you friends at the beach, and you might wind up being censored. After all, some bathing suits are just immoral.

Misleading advertising? Apparently it is no problem to Facebook's higher-ups

On my page, I have been getting advertisements for "Oakey" and "Oak1ey" sunglasses for $27. These advertisers are deliberately trying to fool people in to thinking they are getting Oakleys (which you simply do not get that cheap). But this is allowed.

So, if you should happen to catch a shot of your cousin coming out of the waves with a wedgie, you are censored. Try to dupe people into buying a cheap project: no biggie.

Backward ethics. They're everywhere...


  1. Braveheart, ugh. It's my own opinion that no one should watch that movie, ever, and not just because it's typical too-violent Gibson fare. (It takes me less time to explain what they got right than what they got wrong).

    If your son likes mediaeval stuff, how about Danny Kaye in The Court Jester?

    1. You did, once, mention your extreme distaste for Braveheart -- based, I think, on the extreme historical innacurracy. I did read a bio of both Robert Bruce and Wallace after having seen the movie and was amazed by its inaccuracy, especially the fact that they two never met...

      Danny kay would be more appropriate. (I love him.)

    2. Wallace and the Bruce did live in the same century. That's about it.

      (My PhD is, for realsies, in Scottish mediaeval history. My academic advisor in those days used to say that the one thing the movie got right was the portrayal of Edward III as a 24-kt son-of-a-*cough*).

      The Court Jester isn't exactly historically authentic either, but then it's not pretending to be history. Plus, Danny Kaye.

    3. Inauthentic, with a sense of humor, is much easier to take than inauthentic with dead-seriousness,
      I think. Though I love history, though, I suppose the part of me who became a lit major is fine with the inaccuracies. The film's story works for me on a lot of levels, still...