I am so proud of the CBS Television Network. There’s been a ridiculous furor over a planned Super Bowl ad featuring college football star Tim Tebow, funded by Focus on the Family. It recounts the story of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy in 1987. After getting sick, she ignored doctors’ recommendations to abort her fifth child, and gave birth to Tim Tebow, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy and guide the Florida Gators to two BCS championships.
This should be an inspirational story for women. Not according to NOW (the National Organization of “I don’t know what kind of” Women), NARAL, and other organizations which support women killing the babies in their bodies if they wanna. These “feminista” types generally call themselves “pro-choice.” Well, it looks like they’re not too happy about the promotion of women who don’t make the choice to kill their baby.
When a woman’s inspirational story of making the choice to avoid an abortion to take the risk of giving birth to her child becomes controversial in a culture, that culture has degraded to a horrible point. It is frightening to me that NOT killing the baby in your body is controversial, but killing the baby in your body is not controversial.
Here’s my idea: let’s make an ad for the “pro-killing baby” feminista types. Show a brief clip of the baby being macerated and then shift focus to a happy woman who’s celebrating that death and her resulting freedom.
Then let’s make an ad for a woman who doesn’t want her baby who goes to term and gives the baby to a stable family – a married mom and dad — for adoption, and shift focus to a happy woman who’s celebrating that life and her freedom.
Then, let’s vote.
Why don’t I like so-called “reality” or “actuality” TV shows? Because they’re mean.
They are intended to be mean, because “mean” is entertaining to some segments of the audience, and that scares me.
Throwing Christians to the lions and watching gladiators fight to the death used to be considered wonderful entertainment in ancient times. And while I’m not comparing actually killing someone with humiliating and demeaning them, there is a continuum here.
Christians and slaves didn’t volunteer to become fodder for death to those eating popcorn in the stands. The people on TV do volunteer to put themselves in situations which contribute to the demise of public taste, humane behavior, compassion and sensitivity. They humiliate themselves for attention and profit. That they volunteer for it doesn’t make doing it to them right. It just makes them terribly pathetic.
When people go on an “American Idol“-like program in the hopes of being discovered for their talents, a simple “winning” or “losing” seems sufficient to me. However, having judges who become popular by hurling horrendously insulting comments seems to be the real motivation for these programs. Hurting people in front of others is an egregious act. Televising it, or making money off of sponsors who support it, so that people at home can feel superior and powerful (because they’re not the ones being attacked) is purely disgusting.
These shows bring out the worst in people. Martians watching our entertainment media would probably choose not to come to our planet, or else just wipe us off the face of the galaxy, because of how humanity displays itself on television (much less the Internet and the United Nations).
No one is ashamed anymore. They pass it off as giving the audience what it wants. “It’s only TV,” or “it’s only a way to make a living,” they say.
When was the last time you took your kids to the airport and bought some candy and magazines? Did you notice what your kids see at their “short-eye-level” when you pay for your items? They see what they can also notice at many grocery store check-out lines and magazine racks: they see soft porn – half-naked, provocative photos of well-endowed men and women.
Now, I’m no prude. I wear jeans below my waist, and I have some belly-button “bling.” But I do believe that there ought to be such a thing as a free society maintaining its First Amendment rights, while at the same time jealously protecting the innocence of children.
A recent female caller complained that her boyfriend occasionally looked at some photos or videos of naked women on the Internet. It is unbelievable to me that, lately, there is such hysteria about men viewing naked women or male/female sexual encounters. Did somebody just discover that men are very interested in sex and are visually stimulated by viewing women’s bodies?
Of course, Internet porn can be a problem, particularly when it becomes compulsive and a substitute for real-life intimacy, or self-medication for emotional problems. However, much of the time, it is just a curious male having a stimulating moment.
I brought up to that caller that I thought the guys who do the workout ads for some of those exercise machines are “hunks,” and exciting to see. She agreed. If all I did was play a continuous loop of these ads, I’d be having a serious emotional problem. There is a huge difference between “casual,” and “compulsive.”
That said, our society has a big problem making “crass” more casual in the public square. The fashion police should arrest most of those young women with big bellies and big butts hanging over those ridiculously low-cut, tight jeans, and short, too-tight tops, as well as young men with no tops, and with their pants falling just at or below their pubic hair line. Their parents either don’t care, or have given up attempting to be leaders, or have joined the ranks of the “crass” themselves.
This society should shun malls that harbor Victoria’s Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Frederick’s of Hollywood, as these are establishments which use provocative photos and displays to promote their products within clear view of families and children walking through the malls. I mean, there you are with your adolescent sons and daughters, looking up at practically naked women and men in their underwear, with seductive looks in their eyes. What are you supposed to say to your children about that?
These images tell your children that sexuality, nudity, their bodies, and intimacy are just “everyday stuff” – no big deal, certainly not private, and definitely not special. Is that the lesson you want them to learn?
One mother of a 12 year old boy wrote to me that after they came home from their town’s mall in which they personally experienced all of the stuff I’ve just mentioned, he suggested that they should do their shopping online from now on.
Not a bad idea.TrackBack URI
Perhaps you’ve seen the TV ad? It begins with a family scene, where the father has gotten one of that company’s cell phones, which permits the selection of certain people as “favorites.” Everyone is making suggestions as to who should be among his “favorites,” and the eight-year-old son, in front of Mommy, suggests that Dad put in the number of the woman he stares at during the son’s ball games! There is absolutely no reaction from anyone.
The teenage daughter then suggests her boyfriend (who has a mustache), and the Dad says that the “fine print” indicates that no kid with a mustache is permitted, and then he proceeds to call his daughter “dude.”
Using behaviors destructive to families is not my idea of good sales practices. T-Mobile is off my radar. I can’t imagine a group of executives sitting around in a brainstorming session thinking this would make for a great sales incentive. I can’t imagine TV executives agreeing to play these ads. I can’t imagine anyone at home watching and thinking “this is cute,” and feeling driven to buy T-Mobile’s products or services. I can’t imagine ever buying one of their products.TrackBack URI