TV Morality

[Oblimo]

It was spelled out in the book, actually. One joins the marriage, or one leaves it.

Sounds more like Communal Living with Benefits.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[rgraham666]

Sounds more like Communal Living with Benefits.

Ooooh.

I'm good at Benefits.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I first thought seriously about group marriage when I read Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Who didn't?

(Not to mention when we read Stranger, Time Enough for Love, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, etc. - the man was a sex-fiend! )

I Heinlein.

 

[3113]

Church of All Worlds

To have a line marriage like the one in that book today, here, you'd have to keep the whole arrangement secret, something you couldn't ever do, with kids. Kids will give you away, man. They say anything they hear to anyone. And once they do, as Boota says, the game is fuckin over.

Just a pipe dream, I guess.

You've never heard of the Church of all Worlds?

The minute Heinlein hit it big in the 60's, which, let's face it, was a time very open to the idea of communal living and multiple partners, an organization started up in favor of his ideas on marriage. All equal, nothing like harems or Mormons with multiple wives or anything like that. Here's a overview of the influence of Heinlein's books on the idea of marriage.

And here's the official website for CAW.

 

[ms.read]

Sounds more like Communal Living with Benefits.

Now that sounds like a utopia to me

 

[Frank Noir]

I saw one of those CSI shows the other day, a rerun, where the murdered woman happened to be part of the "swinging" lifestyle. *gasp*

The officers were oh-so-serious, examining her home, looking at their computers, checking out their sex toys, etc. As they questioned everyone who was at the party (even checking 26 condoms for prints and DNA!!!) they were very judgmental of the sexual lifestyle instead of worrying about the murder!!!

Hubby and I were most peeved. Lots of moralizing for a TV show.

That got me to wondering what would happen, police-wise, if something ever happened to me. What would happen if my property became part of a crime scene.

I mean honestly, my laptop is a den of iniquity, so to speak. A veritable treasure trove of evil, a storage place for the most nasty of nasties.

The stories and pictures alone would keep them busy for years.

I'll bet the cops would be very judgmental to me, too. They'd check my laptop out only after spraying Lysol on their pervy little hands.

Cool.

Got anything you don't want anyone else to find hanging around?

Obviously! How about a USB drive full of graphic rape fantasies?

What annoys me about this kind of moralizing on mainstream tv is this: The writers are absolutely fascinated by the sex stuff (I also seem to remember another of the CSIs having some s/m stuff on once) - and they know the viewers will be just as fascinated. But for some reason, they're expected to write that "don't try this at home" angle into the script. Talk about double standards.

Mind you, if they didn't, they probably would be accused of "advertising" deviant lifestyles.

 

[emap]

Wasn't always this bad. Think back to the original Law & Order, not the first season but at a couple points they had people who engaged in deviant sexual practices. One was a swinger lifestyle, they spent more time talking about how she dealed drugs and chasing down who she got it from than on bashing swingers.

Course this was back before it became the big 'IN' thing to bash anything beyond heterosexual missionary sex. Though Law & Order still works more on not bashing the deviant sexual practices beyond the characters going that is weird or I wonder how they can handle that.

I'm still flummoxed what the huge deal about Janet Jackson baring a nipple for half a second at a super bowl is. I mean good greif, most children suckled on breasts for the first year of their life. They live with two adults who don't always get dressed before rushing to a scream.

Luckily the whole not in any house crap will die down soon and people will go back to don't make me watch. Well probably and hopefully, I am getting tired of wanting to beat them over the head.

 

[3113]

What annoys me about this kind of moralizing on mainstream tv is this: The writers are absolutely fascinated by the sex stuff (I also seem to remember another of the CSIs having some s/m stuff on once) - and they know the viewers will be just as fascinated. But for some reason, they're expected to write that "don't try this at home" angle into the script. Talk about double standards.

Nicely put, but I think it's less about double standard than "having your cake and eating it, too." The "deviant" sexuality lures in the viewers with lurid promises of forbidden sex. All the things they want to do...but would never dare! Swinging! BDSM! Fetishes!

Etc. BUT! the shows promise, it is not going to explore these deviant worlds for the purposes of titillation and gaining viewers. Nope. Scantily clad women in leather with whips are NOT being shown to sexually excite the viewers, nor are flashback scenes of near naked men and women engaging in group sex or rich people having a party with prostitutes in a penthouse...no, no, no, the show is NOT setting out people's deepest held sexual fantasies like bait to get them to watch.

Nope. This is all part of an "after school special." It's purpose is to teach everyone a very valuable lesson. To wit, be happy with your hum-drum, monogamous, heterosexual, missionary position lifestyle. Because those folk in Las Vegas (or Liberal New York City, or where ever) who are fooling around with this deviant stuff are playing with fire. Look at how they end up! And none of them are happy, let alone safe from being horribly murdered--or being murderer and destroying their lives and families.

So think about the children next time you dream about that deviant lifestyle, and remember that happiness is in your own backyard And thus, tv gets it both ways. The righteous conservatives can't shut them down for promoting sex because the lesson is always the one so popular in exploitive horror flicks (sex = death), and the sex-starved viewers tune in.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Nicely put, but I think it's less about double standard than "having your cake and eating it, too." The "deviant" sexuality lures in the viewers with lurid promises of forbidden sex. All the things they want to do...but would never dare! Swinging! BDSM! Fetishes!

Etc. BUT! the shows promise, it is not going to explore these deviant worlds for the purposes of titillation and gaining viewers. Nope. Scantily clad women in leather with whips are NOT being shown to sexually excite the viewers, nor are flashback scenes of near naked men and women engaging in group sex or rich people having a party with prostitutes in a penthouse...no, no, no, the show is NOT setting out people's deepest held sexual fantasies like bait to get them to watch.

Nope. This is all part of an "after school special." It's purpose is to teach everyone a very valuable lesson. To wit, be happy with your hum-drum, monogamous, heterosexual, missionary position lifestyle. Because those folk in Las Vegas (or Liberal New York City, or where ever) who are fooling around with this deviant stuff are playing with fire. Look at how they end up! And none of them are happy, let alone safe from being horribly murdered--or being murderer and destroying their lives and families.

So think about the children next time you dream about that deviant lifestyle, and remember that happiness is in your own backyard And thus, tv gets it both ways. The righteous conservatives can't shut them down for promoting sex because the lesson is always the one so popular in exploitive horror flicks (sex = death), and the sex-starved viewers tune in.

Good analysis. And the sad part is, there are many good reasons why people really should think hard about choosing to adopt a "deviant sexual lifestyle," and they all boil down to "will this really make me happier?" or to put it a different way, "is this really the path to The Good Life?" Per your previous post, few are those who genuinely adopt the "true mindset," and many are the pitfalls for those who do not and nevertheless play these games.

But no, we can't talk about any of that, for reasons you point out here. The upshot is, the "warnings" have as much credibility as government "marijuana is dangerous" ads, and perhaps actually entice thoughtless people who because of that probably should not taste these forbidden fruits.