From Gregg Easterbrook’s over-the-top absurd column that essentially asserts that the Patriots’ season is indelibly tainted by “Spygate”–which is, in terms of its actual effect on competition in the leage, a complete non-event1:
Will the Victoria’s commercial be TV-14? Earlier this season, TMQ noted that NBC’s Sunday night football wrap show is rated TV-14 — I wondered whether I should let my 12-year-old watch it. Reader Rebecca Seidel of Monroe, Conn., writes, “Tell Spenser he shouldn’t watch the commercials. While the NFL itself keeps programming clean, not all of its sponsors feel the same way. Based on the assumption that mostly adult males will be the ones watching football past nine on a school night, the ads tend to get a little racy.” On the East Coast, half the Super Bowl will occur past 9 p.m., the hour when networks start allowing racy ads. Risqué is fine for adults, but should it occur in the context of the one show per year that every little kid in America is allowed to stay up late to watch? We’ll see how the commercials stack up this year.
Okay, so here’s my question. WHO CARES? I know, I know. Lots of people care. But I think it’s ridiculous. So what if a bunch of pre-teens see cleavage? What’s the worst case scenario? Youngsters all over America start humping their couches? Do you think there’s any way to prevent, or even slow, adolescents’ discovery of the human body, in all its sinfulness?
Three years later, is there any reason to think that Janet Jackson’s ruthless baring of a nipple had any effect whatsoever on the millions of children who caught a glimpse? Aside from scandalizing a lot of adults who are just desperate for something to be shocked about, this “issue” is a complete joke. I’m sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to give a crap about sexually provocative images on television.
You want to know what this is about? This is about parents feeling uncomfortable sitting in the same room as their kids when this stuff is on. They don’t want to talk about sex with their kids. They think that keeping provocative images and other evidence that human beings have sex away will mean that children will never ask them about it or even, heaven forbid, just go out and do it.2
Suffice it to say, this perspective is incredibly stupid. Pretending a problem doesn’t exist is the surest way to exacerbate it. And taking superficial steps to keep a problem out of sight just means it’ll be that much more problematic down the road. And, of course, this would be an appropriate time to note that we as a country have bigger fish to fry than the possibility that our children might find out about mammaries.
Bring on the TV-14 ads. We can handle them.
1 I don’t know what spurred this witch hunt, but Easterbrook is clearly on a mission. He “contributed” to this story about a long-departed Patriots employee who seems to be blackmailing the team with public statements indicating his willingness to reveal something or other he did when he worked for them. After a year of blind speculation based on how little we know about the situation, I don’t take him seriously anymore. But it’s getting really tiresome watching him go after the Patriots for doing what I have no doubt that every single team in the league is doing, in one way or another. I could go on, but I won’t–you get the point.
2 By the way, I just want to make clear that I don’t think kids having sex is a huge problem. I think kids (and adults) having unprotected sex is a huge problem. So maybe instead of pretending sex doesn’t exist, is wrong, and must never happen, we ought to try something else. Like acknowledging it as a fact of life and doing our best to make sure that the consequences of youthful indiscretion aren’t so serious.
Follow me on Twitter