If you peek through someone’s window at a couple that are making love, it’s against the law — you’d be thrown in jail as a pervert. And yet we peep through a screen of window called a movie screen, and then it becomes alright. It’s not alright!
I have to admit that I had never thought of it quite that way. Of course, where does one draw the line. Certain “classic” books have such “scenes” in them. The Bible is one, of course.
Not that I completely disagree with him, actually. He does cause me to think about what I put into my life. It really is too bad that far too much sex and violence is put into movies that actually doesn’t add to the plot. Hollywood, slowly, is starting to listen. Hollywood still doesn’t understand it. Hollywood does understand money, though.
Presumably one has not been invited to peer though the neighbor’s window. That is why one can expect to go to jail when “peeping” but not go to jail when one attends a (staged) representation of more or less the same scene. Category error.
I applaud the author for not suggesting the government should treat both with civil penalties but is instead recommending a kind of economic response.
Meanwhile, I’ll watch or not watch what I damned well please. 🙂
I certainly agree regarding economics versus politics on this. I don’t think the author was referring to a legal situation regarding peeping tom/jane versus movies, but morality. More specifically, he was referring to Christian morality. On the Christian morality “playing field” the question is was is the difference between the two (and I am not referring to pornography, but standard movie theater stuff). There is an understanding that the sex or whatever in the movie is fake (again, assuming standard theater stuff). So, there is an arguable point there. I believe that it boils down to the motive of the individual.
Does this mean we need to shut the curtains?
Interesting…
You might as well… you chopped down my tree. lol