LIFE IS NOT RATED PG-13

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Movie ratings amuse me. Whenever I see a movie poster, I always look at the rating box. In the old days, the rating box was simple: It just listed the rating (G, PG, PG-13, R or X), plus the general description for the rating. For G, it said "General Audiences." For R, it said "Restricted Audiences."

Now the rating box is a little more complicated. It still gives the rating and the general description. But it also gives "reasons" why the movie earned its rating. For example, it might say the movie is rated "R" because it contains "Nudity, Some Sexual Content and Drug Use." Or it may say the movie is rated "PG-13" for "Some Language, Adult Situations and Scary Images."

I know why there is a rating system. The Motion Picture Association of America started the system in order to help parents decide whether they should take their children to the movies. If a parent sees "R" at the bottom of a movie poster, then he or she would know not to take 6-year-old Johnny to see it.

But the rating system does more than "protect children from unsuitable content." I have written that it can also perform a political function by limiting access to a film if the "raters" do not like its message. An "R" rating, for instance, substantially reduces a film's potential audience by reducing the number of theaters that will show it. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for a film to reach a broad audience. In sum, raters can influence an artwork's communicative outreach by tacking on harsher ratings, even when they are not really warranted.

And who are these raters? What criteria move them? Put simply, they are private Americans with relatively little tolerance for "unconventional" ideas, language, themes, images or messages. They also have a very squeamish moral sense. Sex and nudity put them off more than violence. Breasts are more threatening than explosions and killing. If a movie even remotely strays into "controversial" ground, they will rate it "R." A straight make-out scene might only generate "PG-13." But a gay one would definitely yield an "R;" or maybe even "NC-17" if it is graphic enough. And if you dare to use the word "fuck" once in your movie: Forget it; that's an "R" for you. Hey, you could always opt for "fudge" to save your
box office.

What explains this hypersensitivity? Is it really all about the children? Why should movies that deal with "real-life things" earn harsher ratings than meaningless fluff?

Consider this: I recently saw a movie poster with a "PG-13" rating because it contained "Some Smoking." Say what? Smoking? Since when did smoking become a taboo subject? Do we really believe that our children will turn into criminals because they see someone smoking a cigarette onscreen?

I mention this for three reasons. First, I do not like the moral hypersensitivity in the movie rating system. Second, it is just not possible to shield children from every single allegedly "bad" thing in life. Third, there is little correspondence between what happens in movies and what happens in actual human experience.

Children see smoking all the time. They do not need to be 13 to know that people smoke. In fact, if their parents smoke, they probably have known about smoking since the moment they could form memories. Even if their parents don't smoke, it does not take long to see someone else smoking outside. Smoking is everywhere. Sure, it's not good for your health. But it's part of life. There's no sense morally rebuking a movie simply because it shows something that millions of people do every single day. And there's even less sense in attempting to prevent children from learning about it: Chances are they already know.

There is so much about movies that is totally unrealistic, even in movies that claim to portray reality. Movies are a fascinating medium because they lead viewers into a dimension that closely resembles reality. Yet on reflection, it is clear that they are not real--not even close. Life does not have snappy dialogue, segue cutscenes or a melodramatic soundtrack. It does not have a set run-time, either. Put simply, there is a wide range of human experience that will never appear on a movie screen. And even the most banal things--like going to the bathroom or sexuality--often earn harsh scolding from the raters.

We do and say things every day in our lives that would lead to an "R" rating or worse. Just getting undressed to get in the shower pushes us into "NC-17" territory. The human body, in other words, is a taboo subject. And movies are supposed to represent reality? How could they when they don't even show the most basic things that people do and say every day?

Movies are artificial. They do not represent reality. In that light, it is foolish to rely on them to form impressions about life because there is so much about life that they never portray.

Movie ratings are artificial, too. If anything, they simply measure the moral qualms of a few squeamish Americans. It is too bad that the raters have such a strong influence on what millions of people see on movie screens.

All I know is that my own life is not even close to PG-13. It's been NC-17 since before I could even talk. If you've ever been naked in your life, you're rated "R" at least.

Movies might spare the faint of heart. But life doesn't. This shit is rough.

UNDERPANTS ARE DANGEROUS AND MUST BE SEARCHED, NO MATTER THE COST

A CRITICAL MESSAGE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

By : Mr. B. Kyle Hosenfeld, Ph.D., Acting Commissioner for Airport Security, Department of Homeland Security (appointed by President George W. Bush, 2005-present); Former Chief Financial Advisor, Traxxx Garment Manufacturing Company, Inc., Toledo, Ohio (1990-2005); Lingerie Expert (since childhood); Ladies Hosiery Hobbyist (1976-present).

Terror does not take a Holiday. Terror does not distinguish between the old year and the new year. For terrorists, every day is another opportunity to kill Americans and disrupt American business. Here at the Department of Homeland Security, we know that.

That is why we never rest. We are committed to protecting the American people from Muslim fanatics, as well as any other fanatics who attempt to depress the stock market through violence. This holiday season, we saw that terrorists remain determined to strike America. Almost a decade after 9/11, a Nigerian Muslim named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up on a packed airliner above Detroit. To accomplish his dastardly plan, he packed explosives into his underwear. Thankfully, they did not detonate; he succeeded only in setting his own pants on fire. The New York Post dubbed him "The Crotch Bomber." The Daily News called him "Fruit of the Loon."

We concur. But despite Abudulmutallab's failure, we understand that the American public remains concerned about terror. For that reason, we have instituted new airport security measures to assuage anxieties concerning hosiery-borne weapons of mass destruction. We believe that we can stop terror attacks before they happen. And that means searching every piece of underwear in the airports--and that means all of it, right down to the buttocks.

Searching underwear is the only way to verify whether an airline passenger is really a terrorist. In the past, we have seen that various garments can carry weapons. Learning from the past, we here at the Department instituted a new airport security principle: Target the offending garment. When Richard Reid tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe in 2001, we decided that all shoes are dangerous and must be searched. In the years since, Americans learned that they had to take off their shoes before boarding an airplane.

We should apply the same rule in this case. Here, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an explosive in his underwear. The "offending garment," then, is underwear. Just as we required all Americans to take off their shoes at airports because Richard Reid transformed shoes into an "offending garment" in 2001, so too must we require Americans to take off their underwear today. It is the only way to ensure maximum safety for all.

We do not believe that Americans will find it inconvenient to remove their underwear prior to boarding aircraft. In 2001, Americans understood that Richard Reid nearly blew up a plane with a shoe-bomb, so they willingly suffered some inconvenience by removing their own shoes in the years that followed. In 2010, Americans understand that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up a plane with an underwear-bomb, so they will not mind suffering some inconvenience by removing their underwear, too. When safety is at stake, Americans do their part. Underwear is no different than a shoe. When removing a garment is necessary to protect America from Islamic terror, we are confident that Americans will gladly--and publicly--take everything off.

We recognize that civil liberties advocates will object to our new underwear search protocol as excessive. They will say that requiring all Americans to remove their underwear will encroach upon their dignity. They will say that it will invade their privacy. They will even say that it will embarrass children and women, especially overweight ones.

We disagree with these contentions. For one, we point out that privacy must yield to national security concerns. We all like privacy. But when it comes to preventing terror, we all must be prepared to bare all for safety. If we are a little embarrassed about our bodies, we must learn to overcome our shyness, whip off our underwear and put it on the automated x-ray conveyor belt. Second, the United States Constitution does not guarantee "dignity." Even if stripping naked in public were somehow "undignified," we reject the assertion that an official, Federally-mandated underwear search violates "dignity." If nudity occurs pursuant to law, it is not undignified. More to the point, we are certain that every American would rather sacrifice their dignity by removing their underwear in front of leering, apathetic Transportation Safety Agents than be blown up in midair. Viewed in that light, we see absolutely no merit to the claim that mandatory underwear searches violate "privacy" or "dignity."

Mandatory underwear searches will do more than merely stop terror. They will also yield beneficial secondary effects. For example, many drug traffickers elude detection by packing narcotics in their underpants. By requiring everyone to remove their underwear, we would eliminate that subterfuge for good. Furthermore, mandatory underwear removal will enable Federal agents to identify dangerous, ugly, unpleasant and malodorous genitalia. Under applicable Federal statutes, such genitalia are "weapons of mass destruction" that subject the possessor to felony terrorism charges. Until now, it has been difficult to locate dangerous genitalia because they are generally camouflaged under trousers, skirts, underpants and stockings. But thanks to the new underwear removal procedures, we will be able to effectively enforce the law against recalcitrant genital terrorists.

In sum, we here at the Department are committed to protecting Americans, no matter the cost. We believe it is logical, consistent, effective and reasonable to require all airport travelers to remove their underwear prior to boarding any flight originating on American soil. Contrary to all objections, this is not a drastic step. It is no different than the regulation requiring Americans to remove their shoes. By orienting airport security scrutiny around the "offending garment" principle, we achieve theoretical and logical consistency for our enforcement efforts. Not only that, we also increase safety, deter terror and reduce genitalia-related crime in interstate commerce. We achieve all these salutary goals merely by requiring Americans to take off their underwear at security checkpoints. Balancing the burdens against the benefits in this case, we must conclude that we have found a winning procedure.

In a final step, we have also determined that all travelers with the word "Abdul" anywhere in their names must be forbidden from air travel. That includes American Idol judge and pop singer Paula Abdul, as well as avowed terrorists such as Abdul Sheikh Mohammed. Although liberal activists and Middle Eastern scholars will doubtlessly claim that this measure sweeps too broadly, we respond that we have conclusive evidence that people with the name "Abdul" stand a much higher chance to commit terror than people named Swanson, Harrison or Clark. When it comes to security, we must consider probabilities. And in this case, we are simply playing the numbers: Abduls are more dangerous than Clarks.

It is safe to fly in America. Do not let terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab discourage you from taking a trip. Despite his nefarious attempt to kill Americans with explosive underwear, we have emerged from this crisis safer than ever before. We have learned that both shoes and underwear are mortally dangerous. To that extent, we have tailored our security protocols to ensure that neither shoe nor slip poses a threat to law-abiding Americans. From this day forward, we promise to search every last undergarment that passes through any airport in the United States.

Terrorists beware: We will search your underwear.

And behold America's resolve: We are not afraid to take off all our clothes, even for a Podunk flight from Tuscaloosa to Memphis. Even if we weigh 500 pounds, we are unafraid. We will take it all off.

When in doubt, just remember our new slogan:

Because security begins with safe underwear®.

NUDITY IS EVERYONE'S CONCERN

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Rep. Victoria N. McCummings, Ph.D. (Child Development); Representative (New York State Legislature); Senior Chairperson, New York State Board of Decency Regulation; J.D., Yale University School of Law (1984); Art Lover.

You can scarcely turn on the news these days without hearing about some scandal involving nudity. All too often, these scandals affect the most vulnerable members of our society: Children. In our digital world, images travel fast. In centuries past, societies could better control nudity because there were not as many ways to broadcast it. Now, photography, the internet, television, DVD-video and even personal newspaper ads transmit nude images everywhere, without regard to whether an innocent child sees them. This is profoundly troubling because nudity is dangerous. That is why I have introduced legislation to curtail the expansion of nudity in 21st Century life.

I have never liked nudity. I do not like bare breasts, nipples, pubic hair, chests, genitalia or buttocks. They are—quite simply—disgusting. They revolt me. They are not pleasant to look at. When I was younger, I became physically ill when I saw a photograph depicting John Lennon and Yoko Ono standing naked next to each other. It was just revolting. Even before that, I became very uneasy when studying classical sculpture. Michelangelo’s David, for instance, often requires me to avert my eyes. I do not care whether art experts and nudity apologists say there is nothing threatening about these works. I disagree. Just think of the children who may see them. If they make me feel ill, imagine the damage they could do to children. It is heartbreaking to even think about it. If we truly care about our children, we must do something about nudity—now.

And it is getting worse. Teenagers use the internet to spread nude images all over the world in an instant. They post nudity on their Facebook pages, leading to shock, embarrassment and family strife. Clearly, we must do something about this. We must find a way to prevent children from accessing nude images, as well as from creating new nude images. Nude images are as dangerous as crack cocaine and crystal meth. Like drugs, nudity leads to immorality, licentiousness and unproductive behavior. Nudity is like a cancer. It threatens to undermine our society’s very foundations, just the way opium destroyed Chinese society in the 19th Century. Unless we act now, nudity could well destroy our Nation.

My legislative plan includes measures calculated to do two things: (1) Control existing nudity; and (2) Prevent the creation of new nudity. To control existing nudity, I propose making clothing mandatory at all times. Naked bodies cause untold damage to our society. When people see nudity, naughtiness, envy, disgust and even violence ensue. In short, nudity represents a very real social danger. To that extent, police measures are justified in reducing it. Public nudity has always been illegal. Traditionally, our society has drawn a moral line between female nipples on the street and female nipples in the home. But this is an irrational distinction; nudity is dangerous no matter whether it occurs in a full sports stadium or a private home. Nudity incites harmful behavior and leads to moral decline; it does not matter whether it occurs in public or private. In short, a female nipple is a female nipple, no matter where it is bared.

In this light, I propose legislation that will make private nudity a crime. No longer will citizens be allowed to sleep naked or even take showers without in some way “covering up.” Although group nudity poses greater dangers than individual nudity, individual nudity is dangerous to the extent that it incites bodily comfort in the perpetrator. That bodily comfort—like criminal intent—can mature into more severe offenses against the law and decency. In my view, bodily comfort is not good for society. By threatening criminal punishment for individual nudity, we can suppress bodily comfort. As long as some people are afraid to get undressed, we reduce the potential for nudity-related harm. We may not fully eradicate individual nudity, but we will at least strike fear into every man or woman who dares to remove his or her clothing at any time, for any reason. And less nudity means safer children.

We must also take steps against the creation of new nudity. Nudity is most dangerous when preserved in tangible form. Prior generations did not face this threat as much as we do. At most, statues and paintings depicted nudity, and only the rich could obtain them. Now, however, we are literally awash in nudity. Nakedness is everywhere. Photography and film largely bear responsibility for this terrible proliferation. Not coincidentally, crime and immorality have intensified in the generations since photography and film increased public access to nudity. We wonder why children talk back today? We wonder why people disrespect each other? We wonder why they hold nothing sacred? Simple: They see too much nudity and they spend too much time naked.

Under my legislative plan, we will combat this free fall by striking at the source: Devices that can create nude images. I intend to introduce legislation that will compel camera makers to develop “nudity-safe” mechanisms for their merchandise. These mechanisms will automatically detect whether the camera is recording a nude image, then disable the camera’s image-making capability. As soon as the nudity disappears, the camera will regain its image-creating capability. This represents a technological approach to stopping nudity proliferation. When my proposals become law, every camera sold in our State must meet Anti-Nudity obligations under the statute. The statute will also criminalize the possession, use and transfer of any camera or visual recording device that does not meet Anti-Nudity protocols under the law. By these measures, we will reduce the creation of nude images. In so doing, we will protect our children from a major source of potential nudity. If cameras literally cannot create nude images, we necessarily will see a drop in nudity. When there are less nude images, there will be less abuse on Facebook, less immorality on movie screens and safer children. A society with less nudity is a safer society.

I recognize that it will be difficult to eradicate all nudity-producing media. Artists will always paint or draw naked human bodies. But it takes much more skill to draw nudity than merely to record it with a camera. Additionally, direct Anti-Nudity obligations under the law will make it impossible for artists to observe nude models because models will no longer be able to lawfully pose in the nude. This will require artists to produce nude images solely from their imagination, not their direct observation. I believe that imagined nudity presents only a marginal threat to public decency. If an artist convincingly depicts fanciful nudity, the law can deal with him as necessary. Thankfully, there are not many artists with the ability or resources to produce large amounts of dangerous nudity. We can handle a few renegade painters. By eliminating nude photographs and movies, we eliminate the most widespread abuses. Everything else is just cleanup.

I am confident that I will obtain legislative support for my initiative against nudity. Like terrorism, nudity lurks among us. One can never know for sure whether the person next to us creates nude images, or whether he secretly wishes to get undressed. By taking strong action against nudity, we reduce the likelihood that nudity will affect our children. We will usher in a whole new era of safety in which our children learn that remaining fully clothed is far better than undressing. True, we will need to modify our behavior to comply with the law. We will have to learn to use the bathroom in new ways, shower in new ways and sleep in new ways. We will have to learn how to change our clothing without becoming fully naked. And we will have to learn how to reproduce with minimal nudity. Nonetheless, these are bearable burdens because they lead us to a better society—a nudity-free society. By waging war on nudity and the harmful social problems it creates, we both defend our children and edify ourselves. We are better than nudity. We can control it and defeat it. When we pass my law, the era of naked terror will see its last day.

Nudity is everyone’s concern. It is dangerous. We must band together and address it as a society. Today, we can take a step toward a better life—a fully clothed life. Once we overcome human nudity, we can conquer animal nudity, too. We have a duty to our children. Until every mammal learns that nudity is wrong, our children will not be completely safe. Until every dog, cat, hog, bird, horse, rabbit and cow learns to wear a coat and stockings, there will be danger in our society. But we will move incrementally. We will take one step at a time. Today, we move against nudity in humans. Tomorrow, we move against nudity everywhere—and when there is no more nudity, there is peace for all.