Morality and Fashion : A Response

I have posted my previous blog into a different websites blog section and i got a response which is very informative, now i understand why the UK is more relaxed when it comes to censorship, here it goes:

Well, seeing as "morality" as a word has its roots in "mores", as in "social mores", or "acceptable behaviour", that’s not really surprising.

Religious people would have us believe that morality is some kind of absolute, as set out in whatever holy book they choose to follow. But whilst there are some aspects of behaviour that have always been seen as "bad" and will generally always remain so (killing, theft, etc), other aspects of human behaviour are more fluid.

Take, for instance, the example you quote of human nudity: nobody can reasonably claim (although some have tried very hard to persuade us) that human nudity is of itself "bad" - it is, after all, the core of what we are. The display of the naked human body for public gaze is a different matter, and is largely cultural. A thousand years ago it was normal, and in some societies it remains so today (to a large extent, if local climate permits it).

The Christian world’s obsession with all things more or less vaguely associated with sex is a fairly recent phenomenon, in the context of 2,000 years of Western Christianity, and we seem to be approaching the end of that cycle at present with sexual behaviour as such being more readily accepted as inherently human and therefore morally neutral. The circumstances of sexual behaviour are slightly different though: we frown on nudity or sexual behaviour in public although go to any beach and you’ll see plenty of people who may as well be, for all the concealment they get from modern beachwear.

We still have censorship laws which prevent the deliberate display of sexual nudity to minors although I’ve always found this bizarre, given that most countries have sexual consent set at 16: kids are allowed to see each other naked and perform sexual acts with each other, but are effectively not allowed to see anyone else do it! Yes, I know that the way most porn laws are phrased, it is illegal to SELL porn to minors rather than it’s illegal for minors to BUY it, but that is just about the burden of legal responsibility; the underlying principle of such laws is that our society deems it unacceptable for 16 or 17 year olds - sometimes older! - to see naked bodies.

The development of what is acceptable in general-release movies is interesting. I find the degree of violence in modern movies far more offensive than any amount of nudity, or even sex. Sex is normal and natural (admittedly, in private moreso than in public) but the errant disregard for life and the level of cruelty shown in so many modern movies is not "normal" in any possible sense of the word. And yet, as a society,  we seem to consider it acceptable (even, appropriate!) to show 14 years olds several deaths shown in, for instance, the film Jumper (which I saw yesterday, hence it’s on my mind, and in the UK, any 12 year old can see it without supervision) and yet we consider it inappropriate for them to see what they will be like, and what they will be doing, in a couple of years!

50 years ago, the Hayes code required that characters who were not married to each other could not do more than share a brief kiss. Forget doing anything sexual, they weren’t allowed to be shown in/on a bed together (not even fully clothed, fully covered). Then that loosened up until we got to the stage where topless nudity was allowed and them simulated sex (as long as erect penises were not on display). 

Once full nudity had become acceptable in the early 90s, it is well-known (although has always been denied) that the body responsible for film certification in the UK adopted the "Mull of Kintyre principle": if a penis is to be shown, it cannot be more erect than the degree to which the Kintyre peninsula extends from the Scottish mainland. (that’s it, in red ->)

This taboo has been broken several times since then, of course, even on television in the UK.  Of course, it’s interesting to note that US television appears to be behind the curve right now - anyone remember the incredible hoop-la about Janet Jackson’s "wardrobe malfunction" during the SuperBowl a couple of years ago?

I’m not quite sure if morality is quite the same as fashion, in that it’s not just a matter of trends. But what we consider acceptable does change, and morality is about shades of importance rather than right or wrong. Murder is more serious than theft; public sex is more serious than flashing, but is public sex more serious than murder? According to some, and certainly in the view of some film censors, it certainly appears to be more serious when it comes to watching it!