That's Obscene!

On occasion some small item will catch my eye and get me thinking about an issue. Often times it's not a new issue or even a new take on an old issue. Surely this one isn't. It's just the kind of random thinking that invades my brain from time to time. It happens to all of us. This week the item is obscenity, and  I began thinking about it after seeing the coverage of the Super Bowl commercials that aired during the big game last week. Of course, lots of commentators weigh in on all aspects of this modern iconic cultural event. We talk about the half-time show, pre-game festivities and analysis, the game itself, and the millions spent on TV commercials. The article that caught my eye was one where a parents' group (The Parent's Television Council-PTC) was voicing all kinds of objections to some of the commercials that aired during the game.

The PTC was not happy with the commercials that were sexually suggestive, depicting scantily dressed performers (both male and female), and the "racy" nature of some ads. I make no argument with their observations. Indeed some of the ads were racy, sexually suggestive, and depicted near naked people. The PTC was concerned because they believe the Super Bowl is, or should be, a "family" television event- and therefore should not be sullied by nasty commercials children can see. I'm not sure when the Super Bowl became a "family" event. It is usually an over-hyped game following a week-long orgy sponsored by the NFL owners and other obscenely rich people. It takes place in big cities that attract a huge influx of prostitution and sex trafficking- routinely ignored by the local police at the urging of the local Chambers of Commerce. The game features ads that encourage us to eat too much, drink too much and behave badly with fast cars, casual sex, goofball characters, and the latest electronic gadgets. (All due respect to the Clint Eastwood ad)  The day nationally is one of the highest incident days for drunkenness, domestic violence, and elicit gambling. "Family event"? Super Bowl Sunday is responsible for more debauchery than all the Roman Emperors put together.

Given what this day usually involves, I would think some of these groups might be more helpful if they concerned themselves with the real obscenities of this spectacle, rather than the ones in 30 second commercials. Nonetheless, The PTC and others are free to comment on what bugs them. As for me, I have always felt that our culture identifies obscenity incorrectly. So, in a broader sense, it might be good for us to re-think the nature of what we call obscene or objectionable.

Americans tend to focus on materials that are sexual in nature as being obscene. Formal definitions of the word vary. Some definitions concentrate on materials that are "offensive" and are sexual in nature. A broader definition I found suits me better. It defines an Obscenity as something that is "disgusting and morally offensive". Naturally any definition on something so subjective is open to many interpretations. Unfortunately our Puritan heritage has forced us to dwell on the sexual aspects of obscenity, while we ignore other evils that represent far greater offences- by being disgusting and morally offensive.

The picture below is offered as food for thought only. I don't have the answers, or any concrete definition of obscenity. But as I was thinking about this topic I was immediately reminded of this haunting photograph. Being the age I am, some of my earliest impressions of obscene or objectionable sights came from memories of the Viet Nam era images I was exposed to in adolescence. Images like this have stayed in my mind since those days. When I think of obscene materials, I don't think of the body-painting in the Go-Daddy ads or the overtly sexual inferences in the Fiat car commercial, or David Beckam's naked torso- I think of this image. The obscenity isn't derived from the child's obvious full frontal nudity- it is derived from the horror and violence of this image. This 1972 photo won a Pulitzer Prize. It is famously known as "Napalm Girl", and it depicts terrified, traumatized and badly hurt children running from their village after it was destroyed by American napalm bombs. The girl, Kim Phuc was so severely burned by the napalm attack she nearly died. She survived, but spent her life recovering from the physical and emotional pain of this obscenity.

As our kids were growing up we tried to go beyond those old Puritan, sexually repressive notions of  obscenity. Our sensibilities about obscenity leaned more in the direction of horrific violence and senseless human destruction. Seeing the outline of a breast is nothing compared to the indecency of violence. In a world of violent school-yard bullying, graphically violent video games, warlike national rhetoric and behavior, and random shootings I think our children would be better off being repelled by violence than being shocked by sexuality- and we as parents have the power to teach those lessons. No offense to the self-appointed PTC- but there are far worse things to protect and shield our kids from than Madonna's cleavage.

My apologies for this display of obscenity, but
Thanks for looking in.

p.s. If you would like to learn more about Kim Phuc's life and struggles it is easy to research on the Internet. However, be warned, there is also videotape of her fleeing the village that is (even more) graphic in nature, showing far more details of her injuries and burns. Nonetheless, her story is inspiring.