Moral Panic

They may desensitize sex and violence (18 September 2010)

I AGREE that the proposed changes to censorship rules (‘Allow R21 films

in heartland cinemas with curbs’; yesterday), are aimed at promoting greater freedom of choice, and that there are optional filtering systems people can put in place

But such changes may lead to a degradation and erosion of moral values.

Granting people easier access to adult material that reek of profanity, violence and nudity might lead them to succumb to temptation after watching such films as a form of entertainment.

On the surface, it may be be hard to see the negative effects of such accessibility.

But such films are clearly at odds with the values we were brought up with, irrespective of race and religion. These qualities include moral uprightness, decency and respect for every individual. Adult material tends to focus more on personal and carnal gratification.

Making such material available widely and conveniently may shape the way people perceive violence and sex, and desensitise them.

I understand the need for freedom of choice and a compromise is possible.

For example, instead of limiting the websites people have access to, a restriction should be applied to the number of times and duration in which people can access adult material online.

This is to ensure that they exercise some self-restraint and are not going to suffer an addiction to it.

The small-minded tend to make big assumptions, and our writer makes some huge ones. Namely:

1) All movies rated R21 in Singapore are prurient, exploitative affairs that do little else but promote sex and violence.

2) People will succumb to temptation and presumably begin having sex with everything from aardvarks to xylophones right after viewing these movies. In public. Society’s downfall is assured the moment discerning adults are permitted to watch whatever they like.

3) Discerning adults must be policed like children because they don’t know their own limits. This will further ensure the apocalyptic collapse of society never occurs.

I think most people who read here will already see my point but let’s just go through these one-by-one so this post isn’t too short.

1) All movies rated R21 in Singapore are prurient, exploitative affairs that do little else but promote sex and violence.

This is completely false. Obviously there are many sleazy exploitation movies out there (check the Life! section and look for “Overseas Movies”) but, unlike what our writer seems to think, plenty of serious movies are rated R21. To just rattle off a few, there is the biopic Milk, the film adaptation of Watchmen, the modern fairytale Pan’s Labyrinth, the thriller The Departed, and – most recently – the Swedish film adaptation of the novel The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Yes, most of these contain a lot of violence and a couple also contain a considerable number of sex scenes, but all of them have well-constructed plots. The sex and violence is not the whole point of any of these movies. These scenes are merely to advance the story, and these movies all tell excellent stories. They can hardly be called exploitative films that “focus on personal and carnal gratification”.

No wonder our writer calls for curbs on what discerning adults should be perfectly within their rights to do. He’s not yet one himself.

2) People will succumb to temptation and presumably begin having sex with everything from aardvarks to xylophones right after viewing these movies. In public. Society’s downfall is assured the moment discerning adults are permitted to watch whatever they like.

This one’s familiar. It’s the old slippery slope again. Easier access to R21 material means that people will become desensitized to sex and violence which means they will “succumb to tempation” and descend into depravity. Give us a little more credit, eh? Obviously there are those among us who will be negatively affected, but these are in the extreme minority. These people need help and there are plenty of mental health professionals around to help them. Surely it makes no sense to severely restrict access to adult material if only a tiny proportion of the population experiences lasting effects from it? Should we prohibit entirely the consumption of alcohol due to the propensity of some people to drink and drive?

3) Discerning adults must be policed like children because they don’t know their own limits. This will further ensure the apocalyptic collapse of society never occurs.

I find the suggestion by our writer that “a restriction should be applied to the number of times and duration in which people can access adult material online” extremely insulting. Discerning adults should not be treated like children. We have the mental faculties to distinguish right from wrong, and while a proportion might yield to temptation, or develop psychological issues from unrestrained access to adult material, the vast majority of the population should not. It’s all about personal responsibility. Just like a vast proportion of the adult population are responsible enough not to drink and drive, the vast proportion of the adult population is responsible enough not to become sex addicts and maniacs. This is why, despite drink-and-drive incidents, the consumption of alcohol is not restricted to the general populace. I can go right out there now and down as much alcohol as I please. If I choose to get into a vehicle and operate it immediately after, I run the risk of dying in a car accident or being arrested and heavily punished.

Similarly, if someone goes online and downloads lots of nasty porn, then gets aroused and goes out to molest women, he runs the risk of being arrested and heavily punished. What is the difference here? Should we, because of this, ensure that nobody can drink more than, say, 2 beers every time they go to a bar? There is no such restriction, so why should there be a restriction on the amount of time anybody can spend viewing pornography online? It’s an infringement on personal liberties.

Hence what I can conclude from this hugely ignorant letter is that the restrictions our writer suggests should not be implemented on anybody except himself, because he is clearly not a discerning adult. Until he becomes one, he should not be allowed to access adult material at all.

Advertisement