Question 4:
In the course of this discussion many of you have pointed out the rhetorical inadequacy of vague notions like artistic intention, media influence and child sexuality. At the same time some of you have identified general problems that presumably can be solved -- Naomi, in her valediction, noted the need to protect children's privacy; Judith Levine decried the predominance of sexist, ageist, violent images in the media; Michael Medved suggested that our popular culture seems perversely determined to rob its young of all shreds of innocence. Let's put semantics aside for this final question and enumerate the more specific modifications you would make to the way sex is presented in the public and private sectors, if you could change things as you wished, to make this country a better child-rearing environment ( . . . realizing, of course, that child-rearing is not the only purpose of our culture).

I am probably no one's ideal policy wonk, especially since my default attitude is essentially "Let a thousand flowers bloom." But I am certain

that even though we would all wish for a more civil society, for less crime, for less teenage pregnancy, for less "sexist, ageist, violent imagery," for more innocence among children, and on and on -- none of these goals can be achieved by following the path of furtiveness and suppression that some of our society's more influential hand-wringers have proposed. In our efforts to protect our children, we too often condescend to them. We underestimate their ability to see through falsehoods (if you want to hear sophisticated dismissals of television commercials, hang out with teenagers some time), we underestimate their native sense of morality, and, always, we underestimate their perfectly human desire for the very thing that has been forbidden them.
     In fact, it would be wiser to be less selective in the sexual messages we present to young people, not more. For instance, queasy adults who wish that the Starr Report had not been made public (so that they wouldn't have to parry tough questions from their kids) are missing a golden opportunity. What better chance to teach your children about sexual responsibility, about lying and its consequences, about resisting temptation and so forth? The surly-slacker ads for Calvin Klein's cK One may annoy the pants off you, but I can only applaud them for the sheer variety of slackers they present; whenever someone offers alternative images of beauty (or just acceptability), the society is richer for it. Likewise, we're increasingly seeing unconventional-looking movie actresses presented as sex objects -- Renee Zellweger, Christina Ricci, Hope Davis, even, in a way, Janeane Garofalo -- and that is nothing but a good thing, because the more narrowly we define erotic allure, the worse off every child in America, male and female, will be. (In that sense, we are more fortunate now than we were in the fifties, when boys and girls alike were led by movies and commercials toward a far more restricted feminine ideal.)
     Demystification -- which is, after all, only a form of honesty -- cannot but make for a healthier society. Every time you forbid something -- whether condom distribution in the schools or naked people on TV -- you add to its distant glow. Would the nudity in Sally Mann's photographs of her children strike so many people as dangerously erotic if nudity itself were more commonplace, less the object of so much consternation and alarm? Has America been adversely affected in any way (except perhaps aesthetically) by the exposure of naked actors on NYPD Blue? Is candy less attractive to a child when you put it on a higher shelf?
     I am less a laissez-faire capitalist than a laissez-faire cultural critic, in this sense: I do think the cultural marketplace largely takes care of itself. When violence in movies grows suffocating, people stop buying it, and less of it gets produced. (Movies this summer were full of angry asteroids, but much less full of gunplay than in previous years -- except, of course, for the not-very-playful Saving Private Ryan.) When every movie features a bed scene, people will be inclined to wander out for popcorn during bed scenes. Jerry Springer, too, shall pass -- as Morton Downey, Jr. did before him and as so much other trash TV has. And when we've all seen enough Fox specials full of spectacular deaths captured on video, Fox will stop showing them, because the audience will have dried up. In the meanwhile, our stomachs may turn, but our moral fiber will not disintegrate.
     So, what modifications would I propose? Show more, more honestly. Discuss more, more openly. Leave regulation and restriction to parents. And keep in mind that, most of the time, when people call upon us to limit our culture in the name of our children, what they would really have us do is impoverish our culture in the name of their own terror and disgust.

Question 1
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf

Question 2
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Naomi Wolf

Question 3
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose
Sally Mann

Question 4
A. M. Homes
James Kincaid
Judith Levine
Michael Medved
Stephen Schiff
Celine Texier-Rose