Commercials I Hate

I work out of town and I've eliminated most all of TV except for movies, which I love. I've noticed I get a lot more done and am generally more creative.

Unfortunately the rest of my family doesn't follow the same rules. But I think you're on to something there.

Theta I'm a 44-year-old ex marine who has had four kids. I don't think I'm much of a Victorian. As a technologist and writer, I've done and seen a lot. Hell, I've even wrote articles for High Society Magazine (A porn mag -- it was an interview with author Clive Barker about sexuality and horror)

When I mentioned embarassment, I meant other people visiting my house, mostly. Teenagers especially have difficulty with discussing bodily functions, as do all sorts of other people.

And what's so modern about talking about people's vaganias or anuses? It's not like they're anything new. People have been talking about them forever. Since human language developed.

What's new is that standards for conversation are being forced to some kind of low-level norm. If you had company visiting, would you start talking about your erectile disorder? Or the state of your anus? Of course not. Yet somehow those same people can sit in front of your TV and be subjected to this tripe.

"Why is it okay to brag about the hot woman you ravaged in your bed the previous night, but not of a medical condition for which someone might know of a good doctor, or a remedy to try?"

You're making my point for me. It's _not_ okay to brag about your sexual conquests in certain circumstances. In certain circumstances it is. In certain circumstances we might talk about the state of your anus. In certain circumstances it would be rude, odd, forward, or just plain disgusting.

Conversation is situational. Topics depend on the audience. You can't have one all inclusional standard for everything. That's the problem.

It's also why we have manners.

This has nothing to do with leftover Victorian prudishness. It's simply the nature of communication and people.

Parts of previous morality systems can linger like a bad hangover, it's true. But morality systems are usually based on some real problems involving the interaction of free human agents. Simply because the previous system becomes obsolete does not mean that the underlying problems disappear.

And who is to determine for which circumstances it is and is not okay to discuss which subjects? Whose morality are we to follow? Yours, mine? They clearly differ, and I am of the opinion your morality is no better than mine, and mine no better than yours.

"Topics depend on the audience."

Precisely. Have you considered the very television channels and commercials you're watching are targeting a specific audience? An audience not morally objected to hearing of such things?

"It's simply the nature of communication and people."

In some respects, yes. Bear in mind, however, your idea of manners may differ significantly from mine.

"Simply because the previous system becomes obsolete does not mean that the underlying problems disappear."

True, but following one narrow ideal of morality to appease some individuals' sense of decency is hardly a solution. In fact, it creates more problems.

We're just going to have to disagree here.

Practical experience shows that it's very easy to have conversations with people of varying sensibilities: we do it all the time. I don't discuss my penis with children I meet at the supermarket. Strangers in line don't talk to me about their vaginal itch. Social mores haven't gone anywhere and they're not going to go anywhere. Some baseline behavior -- whatever you want to call it -- is always going to be there.

But it's not really a matter of morality at all. It's simply an optimization problem. And it's one we perform quite naturally all the time.

"I don't discuss my penis with children I meet at the supermarket. Strangers in line don't talk to me about their vaginal itch. Social mores haven't gone anywhere and they're not going to go anywhere. Some baseline behavior -- whatever you want to call it -- is always going to be there.

But it's not really a matter of morality at all."

Morality is in itself, the distinction of "right" and "wrong" conduct. What you're discussing above is just that.

Would you discuss your penis with a child at the supermarket, if they asked you about it? If not, why? Is it because there's an underlying social structure which makes you view it as taboo, or because it's actually wrong to discuss a specific part of the human anatomy with a child?

My point is this "baseline behavior" (etiquette/morality) is different for every individual. Whilst you may have not had a discussion with a woman about her vaginal itch in the checkout line, that doesn't mean someone else hasn't. These commercials violate your morality, but not everyone's. To whose morality do we set the standard?

Thanks for the discussion, Mr. Markham. Have a nice evening.

Cultural norms and morality do not have to coincide at all. I may be very open about all of my body parts, yet I could choose not to discuss them due to other people's sensitivies. Reducing morality to "right" and "wrong" is stretching the concept, at least for me. There's morality (what I consider to be good and bad behavior) ethics (what members of my profession or social class view as appropriate), manners (a common system of behavior to facilitate social interactions) and the law (the minimum set of rules to allow people to function together)

There is, of course, overlap between all of these concepts. But I could easily act immorally, ethically, and legally. Or morally, illegally, and unethically. Et cetera. The diferences between these concepts are where things get interesting.

In either case, nobody is imposing anything on anybody. I simply asked advertisers to use a little more restraint. I did not make an argument for changing laws or any other form of coercion and I would not support such action.

I've enjoyed the conversation too. Thanks for taking the time to write.