The Meager Decency Un-Hoax

At the behest of the FCC, I'm self-censoring my spewings [can I say that?] in case this blog is read before the 10 o'clock hour, Eastern Savings Time.

People are talking. There's some lewd, indecent s[expletive deleted] going down all around us: dropped towels, exposed nipples and the piercings they bear, censorship. People are outraged by sex before junior's bedtime, but it's no one I know. People are outraged that "opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into . . . censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks," but again, it's no one I know.

No one I know is worried about these things for two reasons: (a) I don't know anyone who has kids and (b) I don't know anyone who watches network television. That said, even if (a) weren't true, no one I know would be worried because (b), no one I know watches network television. And the reason, dear sirs and madams, that no one watches network TV, is because it sucks a[expletive deleted]oles. It's only now, with the penetration [tough call] of cable and the revenues generated, that pay TV has begun creating its own shows which are subject to much less stringent regulations.

You see, in paying extra money for cable, and more money on top of that for HBO, Showtime and the others, you are creating a demilitarized zone into which the FCC is loath to enter. You are, by virtue of your conscious patronage, consenting to as many breasts and expletives [within reason] that Comedy Central or HBO can throw at you. Basic cable networks self-sensor because there is a less specific consent in buying a basic package than specifically opting in for HBO and they still have to deal with advertisers, many of whom are "family companies". Whatever, the point is: where the FCC treadeth less, there bloometh intelligent programming. On HBO and Showtime, in a land of a[expletive deleted] and expletives, writers are free to cuss like real people, do drugs like real people, and copulate like real people.

This allows for shows real people like to watch.

So go ahead and censor all the advertising during all the bu[expletive deleted]it, sucky a[expletive deleted] programming I never watch. Big deal. Give the puritans their cloistered public airwaves with its intrusive commercialism. I take my smut straight.

All the same, I think we should reach out to them--they of the bible-belt. Maybe the whole problem is just that the red-state people, the welfare state people, the people worried about the effect of Nicolette Sheridan's lower back on toddling Jimmy's soul, are just too poor to afford HBO. Too poor to gain confirmation from Home Box Office that the things they think about in their private moments and the things they do in their darkened bedrooms are not, in fact, deviant.

Allow HBO to speak the unfettered truth, saying, "indeed, Jeraboam [Ezekiel as the case may be], all of humanity thinks bad thoughts from time to time, no one is perfect. Imperfection isn't evil, imperfection is human. Indeed, Jer [Zeke], though nauseating in retrospect, sex is fun in the moment, necessary and most of all, OK for consenting adults."

So I think, post election, those socially liberal 527s with money left over should pool their resources and focus on subsidizing HBO for the heartland's poor and sexually-repressed. Beam them smut, give them Sex for Dummies, and send them forth to preach the sexy, foul-mouthed gospel.

** [because there's no good segue] **

Nor is this Great Indecency Hoax so great, it's been done, it's tired, it's a non-issue. It's a fact of life.

The titillating little tug of war between the prudery and the sex-racketeers has been raging since long before I was born, since probably even before network TV allowed sitcom couples to share a bed. Outside the arena of television, it's been going on since at least the inception of that oldest profession.

As long as there have been whores, there have been those decrying whoredom.

And as long as there have been bare-midriffs, cleavage and smalls-of-backs, there have been those saying such things aren't fit for children. Now, it's just contextualized for Television and the current perceived moral climate [a 22% chance of blustery, fervent puritanism as of the last election]. No privates or swearings between 6 am and 9 pm on public airwaves, and afterward only in moderation--and only then with the proper disclaimer. Thus, when the skin-shy denizens of America, through their champion the FCC, state unequivocally: butts but no boobs may grace our cathode ray tubes, they're just reiterating the one side of that endless debate.

Advertisers and TV execs are always trying to get you to look at boobs, the FCC is always trying to cover your eyes. Granted, Janet-gate shouldn't have happened and was the result of a fame-deprived bit of vigilantism. But this latest thing is just a victim of timing. The post-election cycle is a tepid evolutionary killing ground and now it's less ringed-breast than news-deprived journalists who are fanning a nonflame into a nonfire.

After all, it's sex, big m[expletive deleted]king deal.