lesday -June 24, 1997
O The Battalion
.'PINION
standard deviation
\merican society moves toward perverted truths in visual mediums
t'samad, mad, sick, dark, scary, per
verted world out there. And the bad
thing about the state of America these
pis that we have to live here, with
;hyear getting worse. From inappro-
ate television commercials to adult
leo shops, America is becoming an
:rgrowing, booming industry of per-
sion. Perhaps the most notable aspect
all these instances is the way they are
led together — by visual mediums.
One of the leaders in today’s de-
Opinion Editor
James Francis
Junior English major
viant nation is the rock-music channel
MTV. For the past few months, this televi
sion station has been running two com
mercials which deal with sexual innuen
do. The problem occurs, however, when
these advertisers take the term “sex edu
cation” to mean “sex sells.”
Commercial No. One: The screen is
black. Sounds of multiple voices can be
heard moaning, grunting and breathing
as if depicting a late-night sexual en
counter. Suddenly, the acronym “HIV” is
.eavy
flashed onto the black background and an an
nouncer begins to detail how people can take an
in-home HIV test for privacy. As the voice details
the cost of the process and explains confidentiali
ty in ordering the test kit, the camera begins to
slowly pan back.
The scene that appears in the next few moments
displays people in exercise attire, working out in a
gym with treadmills, weights and other body-build
ing equipment. At first, a viewer’s reaction may be
one of humor (i.e., “That’s funny — I thought this
commercial had people in it who were having sex,
but it’s only health-fanatics”).
But the final message of an advertisement made
to show people how they can order a kit for the de
tection of a life-threatening disease is lost. After the
commercial is over and “The Grind” returns to the
screen, no one remembers anything at all about
HIV or how to test for it in private.
Commercial No. Two: The screen is an off-
white color. A package shaped akin to a candy bar
appears, but the words on it do not read “But-
terfinger” or “Hershey.” A label with the title
“Sheik” runs horizontally across the wrapper;
now the audience knows what the commercial is
about: condom usage for safe sex. Wrong.
Out of nowhere, the voices of a female and a
male can be heard giggling and cooing to-
ward each other. Next, the package peels away at
itself and the outline of a condom can be seen
rolling downward. The “candy bar” figure begins
to shake violently, the peoples’ voices begin to
moan and scream “Yes! Yes!” and finally, the
sound of an alarm clock ringing is heard. The un
seen individuals calm down, the “energy bar”
package comes to a standstill and an announcer
says his line while the words are printed on the
bottom of the television screen: “Sheik— only
the feeling gets through.”
This commercial is not promoting condom use
simply because it advertises for a brand-name
condom. The only thought that will linger in the
mind of anyone who sees this commercial is, “Boy,
I sure would like to have sex right now.” In this sit
uation, the purchase and use of a condom remains
in the back of the brain while an individual solely
concentrates on finding someone to engage in a
sexual encounter.
But television is not the only visual medium
promoting sex inappropriately — the film genre
has been doing the same thing for years. In the lat
est installment of the Batman films, Batman and
Robin, the characters of Robin (Chris O’Donnell)
and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) encounter each
other many times in this PG-13 rated feature,
which multitudes of children are sure to see. In
one of their meetings, Robin asks Poison Ivy to
give him a sign that he can trust her. The response
was simple, yet too adult for young ears to hear:
“How about slippery when wet?”
Although the prevalent mediums are visual, the
term “visual” does not have to mean “electronic vi
sual,” as in film and television. American marketing
uses perverse visual illustrations on the covers of
books, CDs and magazine advertisements.
Anne Rice’s book “Lasher” has a simple cover
which displays her name and the title. Toward the
bottom half, however, there is a cutout section in
an oval shape that allows a buyer to see a small
portion of an inner cover as well. Turning to the in
side, there is a detailed drawing of men and
women scantily clad, some without clothes at all.
Anne Rice might be a great writer, and her books
might make for entertaining films, but people
must stop and wonder what got them to read this
particular book of hers — the title, the author’s
reputation or the inside cover.
It’s true that sex sells — all an individual has to
do is visit a local bookstore and look at magazine
racks with certain issues placed behind others,
wrapped in plastic where only the title can be seen.
If this seems too general and grand-scale, take a dri
ve down Texas Avenue until it merges with Universi
ty Drive. On the corner, there is a neon-red sign
which reads, “Adult Video.” And although there
might not be anything wrong with people who shop
at this “entertainment store,” the question arises of
whether its location should be placed so close to
major roads — strategic locale for business, yes, but
too perverse for children to see and question the
contents of the shop.
American citizens must take heed of these warn
ing signs toward the downfall of society. Although
instances of sexual perversion and wrongful allure
may not be at a level high enough to warrant total
panic and mayhem, there are enough occurrences
in the nation today where the idea of sex is being
used in a deviant manner.
Mail Call
ag burning, protests
(serve recognition
response to John Lemons’June
column:
Lemons and I are in agree-
ent about one thing: flag burn-
gshould not have been out-
ved by Congress. Our
spective reasonings, however,
every different.
lemons claims flag burning
Rot worth the attention paid
it, and that it is only a “despi
te action” comparable to a
entper tantrum” thrown by
'etty individuals.”
What he fails to note is that
^burning is a very powerful
tin of protesting all the social
ilshe mentions in his col-
Rti. People who burn the
^erican flag do so because
l ey know the high esteem that
ge part of our culture holds
in — they know the effect it
Ss on people.
These individuals burn the flag
ic ause they want the gdvern-
e ntto sit up and notice them in
%to do something about a
,u ntry that encourages death
1( i destruction.
^though we both think flag
^ning should be legal,
e hons shouldn’t be so quick to
regard it as too unimportant to
warrant congressional attention.
No form of protest is unimpor
tant. All the time spent by Con
gress was not wasted.
The members have certainly
been very busy violating the
Constitution. Just because
Lemons does not understand a
person’s reason for protesting
does not give him license to go
around attaching labels on peo
ple with more problems than he
can probably fathom.
I highly doubt that Native
Americans of this country, who
have used flag burnings (as well
as hanging an upside-down
flag) to protest their abhorrent
treatment, would agree to
Lemons’ assessment of them as
“childish arsons.” Lemons talks
of priorities, and The First
Amendment should be right up
there alongside tolerance.
Collin M. Conoley
Class of’99
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author’s name, class, and phone
number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit
letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
For more details on letter policy, please call
845-3313 and direct your question to the
opinion editor.
Parental guidance safeguards Internet
I n nature, species adapt to par
ticular environments to guar
antee success. In American
business, the environment quick
ly embraces every new species of
media as soon as it climbs out of
the entrepreneurial ocean.
It didn’t take the business
world long to realize that the
World Wide Web — the highly
graphical and most accessible
portion of the Internet for the
common household consumer —
was the equivalent of the Monolith from
2001 for the business world. It’s considered
commonplace to see Web addresses trailing
the bottom of commercials on billboards or
television. Somewhere along the way, it be
came profitable to promote advertisement
on the Web. Contests, freebies and other
tantalizing offers lure Web surfers on an
hourly basis to divulge their name, address
and other personal information in exchange
for promotional giveaways.
Unfortunately, activist groups claim
this new form of soliciting has attracted a
great number of children to type their
privacy away to panderers offering every
thing from gift certificates to big-screen
televisions. Privacy groups want the gov
ernment to lay down “strict regulations”
for Web sites to ensure that young users
get “parental permission” before giving
away private information; this is no sur
prise. The current climate surrounding
the protection of children from evil as
sumes parents are either too stupid or too
lazy to turn off the television or radio, or
now, the computer. It seems easier to
have Washington protect our children
from media.
President Clinton has ordered a task force
to review the rising prominence of electronic
commerce. The committee, whose members
Columnist
Stephen llano
Senior history major
will release a report on July 1, has al
lowed several sections of the report
to be read early except for the por
tion detailing children's right to pri
vacy when exploring the Internet.
It will be interesting to see what
this report details. Based on the
history of federal government in
volvement in high-tech media, a
slew of red tape and restriction
may be poised to hit computer
screens everywhere.
In an effort to avoid federal pres
ence in the last non-regulated domain, service
providers such as CompuServe and America
Online are trying to orchestrate industry-
based self-policing, which the White House
currently accepts and encourages.
Ira Magaziner, former architect of the Clin
ton health-care plan and now leader of the
task force, has little faith in the market to
solve this growing problem.
“If the industry doesn’t do it, we may have
to legislate,” Magaziner said in a CNN report.
Magaziner displays the traditional au
thoritarian attitude toward free-market in
genuity. Legislation, whether voluntary by
the businesses or mandatory by the Federal
Government, will not work at all without
parental responsibility.
The Internet is different than a televi
sion set or a radio. When tuned to a station
on television, any commercial or program
broadcast on that station enters the view
ers home. If the viewer does not like the
program, he or she always can change the
channel. Parents can keep their children
from watching an undesirable program by
monitoring children’s viewing habits.
Telling a child “no” once in a while really
does work — that is, if it’s backed up with
action. But even the most vigilant parents
might have trouble screening undesirable
commercials from children.
The Web is different. Every Web address
that a user at the keyboard types is what the
program displays. There is no room for an un
wanted Web page to appear on the screen.
When a browser types in the address of a par
ticular company, that’s what the individual
gets. This type of advertising is totally volun
tary; the company has no way of coercing the
browser into giving away information. It is up
to parents to define what is permissible and
what is not with regards to accessing certain
Web pages. The federal government should
not lay down broad-based regulation pre
venting this kind of promotion simply be
cause a few undisciplined children gave away
too much personal information.
It’s about time Washington stopped try
ing to be a parent with regards to the Inter
net. Parental responsibility cannot be con
trolled by legal statutes. Children who spill
out phone numbers and addresses to com
panies do not hurt society— they only in
convenience their family with unwanted
mail and phone calls. This is not a govern
mental problem, it’s a societal one.
Parents who feel that bureaucrats in
Washington are better suited to discipline
their children probably should not have
had children in the first place. Having chil
dren comes with the responsibility to
teach them right from wrong and good
from evil. Parental fears or ignorance
about how the Web works might be the
reason there is so much clamor for regula
tion. After all, many parents cannot under
stand the Internet as well as their kids do.
Perhaps these people can take a lesson
from another generation: their parents.
Television was a new invention as well, but
the majority of households set down strict
rules for its usage.
Strict rules for children on the Internet
should be set by those who can and should
administer them the best — Mom and Dad.