While I was watching television a few weeks ago, I flipped between channels and came across the show “Angel” on the WB network. It was an interesting show, not for what the topic was, but because at 9 p.m., on the free airwaves of the United States, the show’s main character was tastefully in active intercourse.
Living in Santa Monica as a gay man who is a business lawyer, I am not shocked by much. I have known several people in the porn industry. I have a client who legally sells the paraphernalia of the drug industry. I count a Playboy model as a client of mine.
Prude is a word that has only been applied to me once, and I think the user misunderstood the meaning. My point is that sex is not something that shocks me, yet this time, on a network show, I was shocked to see it.
That same show, which deals with some variation of a vampire gone good storyline, regularly shows murders by decapitation, green glowing goo as the remaining blood of a fallen villain, and body parts hacked off. That doesn’t shock me.
And frankly, that shocks me. When the act of making love is more shocking to me than the act of murder, something is wrong with our programming on television, and likely our society.
At first, my thoughts were that this should not be allowed on television. This is a bad image for children to see. No one needs to have this type of programming piped in to their homes. The counter argument is that television is not a right, it is a privilege and it is the duty of a parent to control what their children watch.
The fact is however, that network television, is a right. It is sent over the public air-waves, which are a public asset. Public assets are those things which one cannot provide for oneself, such as the sewer system, the freeways, etc. The airways are regulated by the FCC, precisely because they are limited in number, and therefore are to be used for the public benefit.
Thus the question becomes, what is for the public benefit? Are we better served having television programming that shows rapes, murders, and drug use, or would our society be better served showing normal human relations, done in a tasteful manner?
Television has always been a bit prudish about sex and sexuality. It was in the ’50s when I Love Lucy was on television, and the episodes would regularly show their bedroom with its matching twin beds. Rob and Laura on the Dick Van Dyke show had their own set of twin beds. It was a gentler time certainly, but more naïve.
Nowadays just about every show has its token black person, token Asian person, and token gay person. Sometimes they add to the quality of the show, and most times they are there to prevent the title of racist or prejudiced from being applied.
Today we have shows like “Cribs,” on MTV via cable, which showcase the profits of a life devoted to the benefits of singing about rape and murder. There is little wonder why the inner city is rife with young men striving to make a killing, literally, to get to prison, so they pay their dues, then become rap stars and make their millions.
We are getting the programming we ask for. There is no question that the demographic that the programmers are aiming for is the 14-to 28-year-old male. It just strikes me that this same demographic can be just as obsessed over sex as they are over cars and violence.
The reason why we have an FCC that allows shootings and murders on television but only recently sex, is because it was deemed immoral to show people having a normal human relationship. Life had to be sanitized and idealized. Death could be shown in full, however. Of course that has-n’t helped decrease the 50 percent failure rate of marriage. It hasn’t helped prevent the increasing number of teen pregnancies or the spread of disease, particularly HIV. And it hasn’t made our society any safer, saner or more ideal.
These rules were initially promulgated by men like the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. That pillar of southern open mindedness who remained in the Senate for over five decades, and now that he is passed on, his illegitimate bi-racial daughter makes her debut, at the age of 78. As disgusted as I am by his hypocrisy, it is understandable. To announce his “sin” of extramarital sexual relations with the black maid, would only destroy his career, the child’s life and her mother’s life.
This announcement reminded me of another strident hater of the ’50s, Roy Cohn. A man so filled with self hatred he ruined the lives of other homosexuals, seeking to keep the scrutiny off of his own homosexuality. He helped to create the environment that produced the rules the FCC enforces today on morality.
We have a society based on the sanctimonious, enforced by the hypocritical. I am not saying we should allow the full power of the pornographic industry to suddenly flood our airways. We have cable for that, and frankly that is where it belongs, because that is a privilege. I would rather hope that we could find a middle ground in our public program-ming, where normal human relations, straight, gay, interracial are all tastefully represented, in a truthful and honest manner.
The airways are ours. They are ours to use as we want. I would not want a steady stream of pabulum programming. Much the same as I would not want a schedule full of murder and violence. But if I had to choose between the two, I think for the benefit of our society I would prefer more sex, less violence, and maybe even a little love.
Perhaps we are getting there. As the WB continues to program shows like “Angel” perhaps I will be less shocked to see people making love, and more shocked when they are hacked to bits. Hopefully that will lead to a more peaceful world. (David Pisarra is a partner in the Santa Monica law firm of Pisarra & Grist, he welcomes questions, and (310) 664-9969 or e-mailed at DPISAR-).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 23, 2003. Read the original PDF.