To add to that:
the use of sex, and suggestions of sex, to sell products, such as cars, shampoos (we had a commercial here in which it seemed the woman reaching orgasm, simply by using the freaking shampoo!), is deemed acceptable.
Although it is unlikely the distinction that has been made between commercials and real-life are valid at all: else the commercial would be ineffective, right? We are primed for sex and sexuality, and in order to maintain the semblance of decency content of music gets "beeped."
Yet our governments refuse to take a committed stance on the issue of sex, sexual suggestion, and exploitation thereof in commercials. The situatiion Duke described would not be so bizarre, if the government would be consistent in applying these moral filters thoroughly in the whole of society. And not rule out application of that filter, simply because it is in contradiction with the freedom of initiative / enterprise.
The appaling low probability any sex offender has of being convicted, if the victim and the perpetrator knew each other well, even moreso in dating situations. Estimates (they are hard to come by) in the UK suggest that about 1 in 8 actual rapes leads to a conviction, so there is something seriously flawed there too. If people are not effectively protected against crimes like that, our governments do not deserve to remain in office.
I'd rather see a commercial for a vibrator, than to live in a culture which pretends those tools are not around, leaving people with the erronous idea that stimulation = unsafe sex.
|