Exactly during which decades did some people of my generation lose touch with reality? What cave did we inhabit that earned us the description of “in the dark,” “narrow-minded” and “square” and “mid-Victorian”?
I became a parent in my late 20s, a grandfather in my 50s. Was I ever fully aware of the world growing up around me, or did it just strike me as a I see an innocent face of my 7-year-old grandson and namesake?
Specifically, my concern is about the lost (or maybe the never-acquired) innocence of kids today. But in my usual circumlocutious way, I’ll make the point eventually.
I watched a video on Channel 25, MTV. A blonde, remarkably well-endowed, gyrated as she alternately dressed, undressed, dipped into the pool, rubbed up against a firemen’s pole, and lay down for a massage in her back yard.
None of this in itself is troublesome. What WAS disturbing is the introduction of a kid, not much older than my grandson, playing the voyeur. In several scenes, he’s shown behind windows or dark sunglasses, peering at “Stacy’s Mom,” also the title of the video.
Technically and artistically, the commercial is flawless. The woman, in her late 20s or early 30s, possesses physical attributes many women would slay for. But why the kid? The sympathetic glances from Stacy herself, who, apparently is the boy’s girlfriend, give the tacit message is that if a boy not yet in his teens wants to “make it” with an older woman and mother, there might be emotional hurt, but societally, it’s all right.
The actual filming of the video likely took place in segments. The parts featuring the behind-the-windows-curtains-sunglasses boy would well have been taped at a different time or place. It’s even possible the pre-pubescent boy never actually looked at and drooled over the woman—but the editing of the video makes it appear so.
My problem is the implication that a kid who hasn’t yet reached puberty suddenly is portrayed as someone much older, struggling with carnal thoughts.
The “plot” of the video is that the neighbor kid has a crush on a fellow teenie-bopper. But instead discovers and then lusts after “Stacy’s Mom,” shown in a bikini, a bath towel, and in a dress designed to accentuate her cleavage.
The video is subtle. Juxtaposed between his licking his chops are scenes of the neighbor mom primping and preening and of course displaying a quantity of silicone that would make Dolly Parton proud.
The final scene shows the boy, gleefully fanaticizing in the smallest room in the house. His sister walks in on him, infers what the kid is up to, and leaves, displaying a shocked, yet amused expression.
The video closes with an “occupied” sign hung on the door.
What are we missing here? Has the preoccupation with sex gone so far that it needs to glorify infatuation, especially the “forbidden” variety that involves, literally, a woman old enough to be his mother?
Some of the lyrics validate the idea that “it may be wrong,” but they nevertheless pander to the Oedipus complex by including a boy years away from puberty.
A movie that shocked millions in the early ’70s was “The Exorcist.” One of the co-producers explained in an interview that at no time was the “possessed” girl, played by a 13-year-old Linda Blair subjected to any of the violence or obscene language ascribed to “Regan.” Instead, for the intense scenes, the co-producer said, a voice and body double were used.
That may make it easier for Linda Blair, but to the millions of people who watched “The Exorcist,” the character and actress are one in the same.
In the same way, it’s just not proper to imply the infusion of such blatant sexual thoughts in the mind of a boy. But this doesn’t necessarily mean the video would be acceptable if it included, say, a teenager, or even a legal adult.
In 1986, a video, “Open Your Heart,” by Madonna, uses a boy, no more than 8, playing the Peeping Tom as Madonna does her bumps and grinds. Later, he watches the action in a strip joint.
My contention then and now is that the Madonna video constitutes pornography, if not actual child abuse. While I thought I gathered some support from students in my mass communication class, the consensus seemed to be, “That’s the trend in music, and it’ll get even bolder—and besides, you’re a bit behind the times, Mr. T.”
What’s frightening is the prospect of the eventual legitimization of situations in which kiddie porn becomes more widespread and ultimately, more “accepted.” Does this square with the idea of being “ahead of the times”?
However, the let-it-all-hang-out hedonism that regards sex as a sport to be enjoyed by all, with whoever you choose—participants and spectators alike—is transitory and eventually loses ground to morality . . . or even the more sobering prospect of STDs.