Creating life is disgusting, but destroying life is fine

Written By: - Date published: 2:02 pm, May 7th, 2010 - 11 comments
Categories: broadcasting, Ethics, Media - Tags:

It’s puzzled me for some years how few people bat and eye at the countless portrayals of violent death and brutality we see every night on TV, while anything that portrays acts of physical intimacy are carefully vetted in case they cause anyone offence.

This cultural oddity has been highlighted by a recent BSA ruling that upheld a complaint over a clip from the Vintner’s Luck being broadcast on Close-Up, wherein an actor puts his head up Keisha Castle-Hughes’ skirt. Heaven forbid such sordidness! Yet at the same time, another complaint against the broadcasting of the fatal accident of a Georgian luger at the Winter Olympics was ruled as perfectly acceptable.

If you saw that footage you’ll remember how sickening it was. All the more so knowing it wasn’t fictional but a real death happening before your eyes. When it comes to fictional violence the sky’s pretty much the limit. You can watch dramas every night of the week where people commit horrific acts of violence, including sexual violence, all portrayed in graphic detail. That stuff is fine – just as long as there’s no intimation of people actually engaging in the pleasurable creation of life.

Why is that do you think?

11 comments on “Creating life is disgusting, but destroying life is fine ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rex Widerstrom 1
    7 May 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Just asking… were either broadcast before the supposed time when kiddies are meant to be in their bunny pjs sound asleep (a utopian vision dreamed up by someone who’s never experienced how many times a child can say “in a minute” in response to a simple instruction, but still…)? Which I presume is still set as 8.30 pm?

    That’d influence the BSA I imagine.

    The BSA is a shining example of an unnecessary quango, given that it has no real powers. When it does find someone on telly has done somehting serious, like insult or misrepresent an actual person, it fines the network the equivalent of what said “star” uses in hair product in a week. Give it teeth or get rid of it.

    And I vote for the latter because (subject to a warning before the show starts and perhaps a watermarked rating symbol throughout the show for those who tune in late) I think we should be able to watch anything we damn well like.

  2. well, well, well (3 holes in the ground) 2
    7 May 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Christians, Jesus, Abrahamic religions – in fear of the sexual power a woman has over a man.

  3. ianmac 3
    7 May 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Totally agree at the absurdity of violence good, sex bad. I suppose its a throw over from the good old church days, or nights. In a perfect world we would spend our time bible reading and contemplating our navels – though come to think of it I know someone with a very attractive navel and if I stroke it gently…… No. No! Lets get some bluddy violence instead. Damn churches. (I went to one once a long time ago.)

  4. prism 4
    7 May 2010 at 3:29 pm

    There is a bit in the Old Testament that might be explanatory. This old guy has two daughters, both to be married. It’s better if the oldest gets married first before she goes off, loses her bloom, etc. There’s a keen young suitor for the younger one but she and he have to wait. The old guy says to the young male, if you work for me for 7 years you can have my youngest daughter in marriage.
    So he works for poppa for 7 years.
    The wedding is arranged and the marriage tent is entered at night. In the morning he finds that poppa has fobbed him off with the older daughter who in 7 years hasn’t been asked by anyone suitable. Young feller says WTH and poppa looks at him slyly and says if you work another 7 years you, and would I lie to you, can have my youngest daughter as well.
    Summary – sex is handy for assisting elders to lead youf around by the nose with(by withholding access to it they get free help with the concreting and other chores. Don’t know if it can be worked like that in post-modern times.)

    • well, well, well (3 holes in the ground) 4.1
      7 May 2010 at 4:52 pm

      Withholding sex – perhaps this is now a woman’s Modus Operandi?

      ‘The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since females are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally, wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value. (Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any non-business relationship is sex, and ‘sex,’ ‘physical sex’ and ‘relationships’ are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the value, i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies it to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised and her status increases.’

      http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

      So censorship of sex may be all about woman raising the value of it – i.e. if men saw it in the media all the time they may not be so interested in the average woman.

      • the sprout 4.1.1
        8 May 2010 at 3:50 pm

        i am inclinded to agree with certain aspects of that www, but our media content has been and still is very much determined by men, not women. so perhaps increasing the value of sex is useful to those men who control or profit from female sexuality?

  5. the pinkpostman 5
    8 May 2010 at 3:37 pm

    I think a lot of people are fed up to the teeth with the utter rubbish (mostly American Crap) on our TV every night. Now just this week Cambridge had a weeks festival .Concerts, buskers ect.The talent from around the country was incredible/., Most would hold their own anywhere in the world.NZ has an abundance of talented entertainers from all the arts. So why are these talented people not being shown on our TV programmes .
    It would employ our artists and actors. Instead they go abroad never to return except as World stars coming for one night.

    • the sprout 5.1
      8 May 2010 at 3:46 pm

      So why are these talented people not being shown on our TV programmes?

      it’s because our TV these days is nolonger about informing, educating and entertaining, it’s just about selling audiences to advertisers. that’s it.

  6. uke 6
    8 May 2010 at 3:56 pm

    One solution.

    Throw away your TV aerial and then your kids will never be exposed either to the violent, dangerous stuff; or any of the insipid alternatives that are hosed out to us.

    Amazingly, kids do have the ability to entertain themselves and teach themselves things. TV is far more an obstacle than an enabler.

    (PS. Just chucked away our aerial last week. Getting all the news and info I need online now.)

  7. Graeme Edgeler 7
    8 May 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Creating life…

    … a clip from the Vintner’s Luck being broadcast on Close-Up, wherein an actor puts his head up Keisha Castle-Hughes’ skirt

    You may be in need of a biology lesson.

    • the sprout 7.1
      8 May 2010 at 7:52 pm

      😆 ah… yeah. that would be metonymy Graeme.
      forgot about all the literalists out there, i just assumed they’d stick to Investigate