In children’s literature, books are sometimes banned as a preventative measure to ensure children’s behavior is not influenced by stronger themes. Some of the books considered for banning are as demure as the Campbell’s soup series in comparison to what the media portrays. It is 2008; what can be found in a book that cannot readily be encountered within society or isn’t already exacerbated on the Internet or TV?
What does banning a book actually accomplish? It seems as if it only highlights the fact that the subject matter or content is inappropriate politically, sexually or socially. However, underscoring books that are negative in essence fails to determine their existence. I have been fortunate enough to read “Fahrenheit 451,” and I feel as though I came out all right.
“Daddy’s Roommate,” by Michael Willhoite, and “Heather has Two Mommies,” by Lesléa Newman, are among the most frequently challenged books. Today, gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States, according to about.com. Banning books such as these would belittle lifestyles and besmirch the evolution of the acceptance of the gay population and the hope that same-sex partnerships will no longer be subjected to bias.
Besides, who reads anyway? I mean actually read. Although I’m sure there is still a great portion of the population that enjoys literature, the National Endowment for the Arts issued a report in 2004 entitled “Reading at Risk,” stating less than half of all Americans 18 years old or older read novels, short stories, plays or poetry.
Plenty of other things need banning; books, under the majority of circumstances, should not be included in this list.
Who are they fooling when, on TV, things that need censoring get minimum coverage? Case and point: “The Girls Next Door.” The censors over the girls’ pictures are the sheerest around. They may as well just show their nude photographs in their entirety.
Looking into the past of popular TV, one cannot help but be reminded of an array of subtly sexualized shows. Remember watching “Saved by the Bell?” I did not notice until I grew up that the female characters paraded around in the latest fashions, which sometimes included short, form-fitting miniskirts. When it was time for gym, you better believe the girls’ gym shorts were cut high, too. It did not end there; Slater walked around virtually topless with his muscles exposed at every opportunity, supported by hoots and screams from the live audience, happy they were receiving a show.
Even “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” on occasion has caused my eyes to bulge upon hearing some of the sexual innuendos in the script. Now that I understand the jokes, I think to myself, “They said that on ‘Fresh Prince,’ I used to watch that when I was younger!”
Though the show was not particularly for children, its exposure to them was unavoidable; when it debuted, the show aired in the evening when families would enjoy meals together. The jokes were harmless then. Reruns of shows from the late ‘80s, early ‘90s appeal to the preteen-teenage demographic; their original exposure to these shows is beginning at a more mature age, making the jokes even more innocent since contemporary programming is much more risqué.
Before you condemn me into early senility and send me off to a retirement home to enjoy a cliché round of Jello, let me say Hugh Heffner and his girlfriends do not offend me, especially since there are far worse than them elsewhere in the media. I watch the show, and I do not find myself threatened or upset by any of the material included; I just noticed the skimpy censors.
