A reader calling himself Middle Man wrote this in response to my initial post on Katy Perry and Sesame Street:
Oh for Heavens sake! Are you veiled as you write this? What on Earth was inappropriate about her dress. Most of Sesame Street’s audience are of an age when nudity and a woman’s breast is ubiquitous and non-sexual. This has nothing to do with anything inappropriate as far as the children are concerned. This is just stupid parents who will bring their kids up to be prudes or perverts.
First, it’s nice that someone reads the blog. Second, no; i am not veiled. That would be a little strange as i am a man.
Kids notice more than we realize. Just ask a parent who suddenly hears his or her own words coming out of their toddler’s mouth. Or ask a parent who observes his or her child mimicking that parent’s mannerisms or behaviors.
For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume Middleman is correct: the young viewers of Sesame Street may not “notice” Katy Perry’s dress, or the lack thereof.
But even so, those children will become accustomed to thinking that women reveal that much of their cleavage as a regular practice.
The best of Middleman’s retorts comes in his last line: “This is just stupid parents who will bring their kids up to be prudes or perverts.”
That’s a line intended to condemn, but it lacks real sting. First off, i coudn’t bring my kids up to be perverts by advocating more modesty in women’s clothing.
As for being a prude, well, labels indicate more about the givers of them rather than the receivers of them. But more than that, i am not a prude — not in the least.
Matters of sex and nudity are not shocking to me, which would be true of me were i a prude. Rather, i am all in favor of talking about those things in a healthy manner which respects the beauty of true intimacy.
If “prude” is going to be used as a verbal dagger by folks such as Middle Man anytime someone holds to a standard of decency, then there is actually a perversion worth mentioning here: the skewing of terms.