5 thoughts on “American prudishness strikes again

  1. What I find interesting is that this magazine actually thinks there is a debate on what is appropriate for children to see. I might even go one step further and say that the authors hope to create one where none exists. It’s like back during the Superbowl wardrobe malfunction, when pundits screamed in legion about censorship. My children were also watching that with me. Let’s face it, the media understands that sex sells. Nudie pictures sell, and are intriguing as hell to children and adults alike. Well hands off people. When they get older, they are all yours to mess with. Right now, they are mine, and I will decide what is appropriate. I will not be goaded by articles like this with what amounts to childish peer pressure. This wasn’t written by a child psychologist, rather just a pair of asswipe journalists hoping to spread their feces onto the face of our culture.

  2. I disagree, Scott. I do think that it is the parent’s responsibility to decide what it best for their children, and to discuss it with their children when they reach the appropriate age. But if I want to take my kids to a museum, they’re gonna see paintings of naked humans and statues of naked humans. If I want to show them a book about people at a museum I wouldn’t be upset if there were cartoonish depictions of art in the book. What is absurd, I think, is that the publisher agreed to publish her book, then asked her to change it. If they had problems they should have either discussed it before any deal was struck, or they shouldn’t have offered to publish at all. There’s nothing wrong with the publisher not wanting to put out the book except for the fact that they approached the author, made an offer, made a deal, and then said, “oh, by the way, take it out.”
    And as for your reference to the Superbowl wardrobe malfunction, I guess it’s an example of the subjective nature of memory — I seem to recall the critics saying that CBS had screwed up and that there was no place for her nipples on TV; I don’t recall much, if any, cries of censorship.

  3. Perhaps it’s the tone of the article, and how you labeled it American Prudishness that put me off. I agree that they shouldn’t have approached the author and attempted to have her change anything. They should have just decided against the books. Probably it was such a sensation in these other countries that the money was too juicy to pass on. What I find offensive is that we are considered prude because we don’t want our children to see in one of their books a picture of a woman fascinated with a statue’s penis. The authors apparently think that because the penis is so small, it shouldn’t matter. I get a little tired of hearing about why American’s are so bad and the rest of the world is so much more enlightened. I like it here, and I’m glad that there is a little buffer between childhood and adulthood when it comes to what is presented as children’s television and books. But this kind of thing is starting to creep in. Watch the Disney Channel for instance during the day, and you might get to see Lindsay Lohan’s breasts bouncing in your face. Ditto for Lizzy McGuire, whatever her real name is. That might sound ok to most men, but for me, a father of two sweet little children, it’s a bother and a concern. I’d rather that the progressed in stages. Right now it’s Pokemon and Power Rangers.

  4. You know, I actually thought of that when I wrote that one! Good point. But at least it’s left to the child’s imagination to consider what’s beneath the uniform.

Leave a Reply