Enabling by any other name is still enabling – or – why “for the children!!!” isn’t always the best way

It seems the latest in the list of “things to get fired up about” is the upcoming series on WeTV (which, I believe, was or is Women’s Entertainment Television, a cable channel here in the States) called “Sex Box.” The premise of the show, as I gather it, is ostensibly to help people who are having marital problems. The form of therapy is simple; the couple go into a soundproof, completely non-see-through box, have sexual intercourse, and then come out and talk to a panel of “experts” about whatever their troubles are. Again, per the press releases, the idea behind it is that because of the chemicals released after intercourse, it relaxes you and makes you more likely to be honest.

(I want to digress for a moment and tell you, from a personal standpoint, how absolutely ridiculous the premise of this show is, to me. If the box is soundproof, and you cannot see THROUGH it, then for all you know those people could be sitting in there, playing checkers and laughing at how stupid you all were to pay money to come stare at a box/pay the sponsors to watch the show at home. They go in clothed, they come out clothed. But, as I say, I digress, and so back to the blog post)

At this point, the usual suspects (including the Parents Television Council and Concerned Women For America) are up in arms, decrying the show for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the ever-popular “for the children!!!” cry; namely that some innocent, wide-eyed youngster could come upon this dastardly show and be forever scarred by being exposed to talk of sex and sexual relations while they are young. Fair enough. That’s their opinion, and they are welcome to it. I, personally, find the show’s premise to be tasteless and crass. That being said, though, I would like to bring out a different point, and ask you all to ponder it. Ready?

Why is it their job to be guardians of what our children watch on TV? At its base, no matter how well meant the intention, doesn’t that continue to allow parents who take no active role in their children’s welfare to continue to do so? If it does, isn’t that what they call “enabling”? Televisions are built with V-chips (at least, most of them that I am aware of) and cable boxes come with the ability to block channels, programs and ratings – the catch being that the parent has to take the time to DO it. They have to be involved enough to DO so. If it’s not done, and the child sees the show, whose fault, really, IS it? The producer of the show, or the parent who fell down on the job? 

When does a good intention becoming enabling? Not only enabling, but when does it become meddling? Even worse, when does it become yet another way to let people shift responsibility off themselves and put it in the hands of someone else?

In my opinion, right about now.

It’s something to ponder.

God bless today, my friend.

4 thoughts on “Enabling by any other name is still enabling – or – why “for the children!!!” isn’t always the best way

  1. You asked this question:

    Why is it their job to be guardians of what our children watch on TV?

    Why indeed?

    The Purity Police think it’s more righteous than the average bear. In fact, they think I’m too sinful to run my own life, so they ‘generously’ offer to do it for me. They are determined to save this ‘sinner’ from an extra crispy eternity. If the merely mortal can’t be trusted to conduct their own lives, heaven forbid they be allowed to make mundane choices about what the tykes watch on the boob tube.

    The bottom line, as I’ve written on PIG, is this:

    A child has the right not to see anything on the tube that might ‘shock’ him, her, himher or it. He has the right to watch boob tube fare that won’t assault him with all those bad words that dad says when he’s channeling his inner Tim the Toolman. He has the right to watch boob tube fare won’t ‘enlighten’ him with wardrobe malfunction peep shows, like the ones put on by Mrs. Miller who really should learn to close the damn drapes when she’s changing clothes.


    1. I believe that any good intention can be taken too far, to be sure – but in this case, especially, it seems like a large case of “much ado about nothing” as far as this show is concerned.

      Where you see it as another example of The Purity Police, I see it as more of a condemnation of what we, as a society, have allowed to happen; the abrogation of responsibility to other people as opposed to keeping it where it belongs – on ourselves. As I posed in the question in the blog itself – if the child DOES see the show, whose fault is it, really? Is it the producer, the TV channel, or the parent who allowed it, whether through ignorance or carelessness?

      To me, it’s all about the parent; where they are, what they’re doing, and how involved they are. Or, in this case, are not. Perhaps if more parents did their jobs, there wouldn’t be such a “need” for the Purity Police to keep screaming about these horrible shows; because the kids wouldn’t be seeing them, anyway.


  2. Several stray notions:

    The show you described sounds asinine. It doesn’t need to be ‘banned’. It needs to be shunned

    Parents are being weaned from responsibility for their offspring by the Nanny State School lunches are a prime example.

    The Purity Police aren’t as annoying as the Progtards who think they’re smarter than the average bear…making the merely mortal to stupid to run their own lives.

    I wish…really wish that prospective parents put in as much thought, preparation and planning into spawning as they do when buying a car or a home.


    1. I agree- shunned would be a far better ending for the show than trying to have it banned.

      And as a veteran of seeing far too many kids come out of homes in which their “nightmares came in the daytime” as the poem says, your last comment is one “For the children!” movement I would GLADLY get behind.


Comments are closed.