Morford speaks some common sense

He's redeemed himself after the well-fisked "slut" column. He writes this week about what few want to admit--that dirty jokes, while not being something that we really want children to hear, are hardly going to ruin the precious innocence of a generation. And that the bleating of politicians, particularly conservative politicians, about how they only want to protect the children is one of the biggest lies of all.

Aww hell. Let's try and spell it out anyway. Let's just say it right here: The kids are fine. Kids are not traumatized by much of anything we think they are. Kids are not scarred for life by hearing Howard Stern crack a penis joke with a porn star. Kids are not scarred for life by seeing one quarter-second of a famous nipple on national television. Kids are not scarred for life by reading the word "f--" in this column, which of course they can't, because we can't print it, because if they saw it they would explode and die.
You know what scars kids? You know what traumatizes our youth and stabs at their innocent spirits like Dick Cheney thrusts at integrity? Kraft Lunchables, that's what. Drug-happy shrinks. Refined sugar. Abstinence-only sex education. Gutted school-music programs. McDonald's marketing gimmicks. Joe Camel's head shaped like a giant penis. Bovine growth hormones. Homophobic adults with guns. Rampant hypocrisy, like legal Zoloft but illegal pot, or being sent to Iraq at 18 but you can't have a beer until you're 21.

What I do find interesting about the whole "obscenity" debate is how rarely it does seem to be brought up that sexual jokes and even imagery are not really the great bugaboo that we think they are. At best, liberals mealy-mouthed state, "What's worse--showing kids sex or violence?" Again, I don't think that sexual imagery is good for kids, really. But I saw my share of pornographic magazines, nudity in movies and even saw a movie of people having sex for the first time at 12 by accident. And that grossed me out, which should give people pause as well. Kids are likely to be fascinated by dirty pictures or grossed out, but dirty pictures are not going to cause their bodies to go through puberty a minute sooner. Teenagers don't have sex so much because they have been under constant assault by arousing images all their lives. It's because they are currently under assault from alarmingly high hormone levels.
Considering that we all know that kids are not traumatized for life by occasionally overhearing dirty jokes or by peering at nudity in Playboy magazine, we might be inclined to consider whether or not it's right for our government to raise FCC fines to levels that are clearly designed to run all but the largest companies out of business for dare sneezing in the wrong direction. And certainly we should consider whether or not we are willing to so quickly give up our First Amendment rights to protect kids from dubious risks.
And we most definitely need to watch carefully to see if Fox News's accidental showing of way more than a nipple is going to get them in trouble, or if they get a pass. (Caution: Obscene image. But funny, since it's on Fox.)