Our friend Sam Karnick, of The American Culture (where I blog sometimes, though I’ve been sadly neglecting them) has an article over at PJ Media on violence and sex in the movies. He argues that violent movies are a lot less harmful, and sex in movies a lot more harmful, than it’s fashionable to say.

It seems to me, however, that those who maintain that sex and profanity in the culture should be treated more leniently than violence actually have it exactly wrong: earlier social values, which were lenient toward depictions of violence but were fairly strict about depictions of sex and the use of profanity, had it right, and the modern, more “enlightened” approach is in fact blinkered and wrong. The reason lies precisely in this matter of consequences. When sexual license is depicted without the consequences — broken homes, never-formed families, betrayed loved ones, suicides, disfiguring and deadly venereal diseases, agonizing confusion about one’s sexual role, etc. — all the audience is left with is the lure of erotic pleasure. Bad consequences are either ignored or are seen much later than the choices that led to them, thus greatly weakening any connection the audience may have between the action and any deleterious effects.

I agree entirely. I’ve also argued, in this space, that the big difference between violent movies and sexual movies is not a difference of morals but of appropriateness. Violence is essentially public, while sex is essentially private.

Another point, it seems to me, is that movies have always been about sex as much as about violence. They just weren’t explicit, in either case. Every romantic movie had one object in mind, but we discreetly averted our gazes before that object was consummated. When people were shot, we saw the gun smoke and the bad guy falling down, but we did not observe the bullet hole or the spouting blood.

Nowadays both those taboos are frequently broken.

We’ve been getting a lot of spam lately, and it’s a shame you aren’t seeing any of it. It’s inspiring, in an Engrish way. Early this morning, a dear-hearted spammer wrote, “Writing fictions are really helpful for me thanks a lot for show me the way of my own dream!”

In that vein, I want to share selections from more wonderful, wonderful notes we’ve received from our beloved spammers.

“Economy the ready with coupons is huge, but you can bail someone out even steven more by shopping at more than one store. Once in a while that you be sure this facts, you are ready destined for your next grocery put by visit.”

“One the go fence when wearing eyeliner, is keeping it from running or smearing all the way through the day. To put a stop to this, you should effect that you get the right sort of eyeliner. There are special brands that are arrest proof. These are imagined eyeliners that will matrix all epoch, every day.”

Doesn’t that warm your heart?

I have another post at The American Spectator Online today. In this one, I appeal to Icelandic sagas in order to support my bigoted and hate-filled arguments for traditional marriage.

I have another article up at The American Spectator Online today. It’s about the problem of how young people are to understand the thinking of their ancestors, especially on issues like slavery.

And then, this morning, James Lileks pointed me to an article from io9 that perfectly illustrates the problem. This writer talks about the “mysterious” culture of the Incas, which “had no markets.”

The secret of the Inca’s great wealth may have been their unusual tax system. Instead of paying taxes in money, every Incan was required to provide labor to the state. In exchange for this labor, they were given the necessities of life.

Of course, not everybody had to pay labor tax. Nobles and their courts were exempt, as were other prominent members of Incan society….

Only someone who has completely failed to understand history, in the sense about which I write for the Spectator, could fail to recognize the actual nature of Incan civilization. The common people were all slaves.