The first piece I noticed in the weekend papers was just a short article, but a significant one I thought. It had to do with a noted actor actually refusing to do sex scenes because of his concern to put principle ahead of money. Now that is very rare indeed amongst the Hollywood sleaze set.
The piece opened this way: "Former 'Desperate Housewives' bad guy Neal McDonough has reportedly been sacked from a new TV series after he refused to do a sex scene. The 44-year-old actor was tapped to play opposite Virginia Madsen in the upcoming U.S. program 'Scoundrels', but was abruptly replaced just three days before the filming began. McDonough, a family man and devout Catholic, apparently refused to do heated love scenes with Madsen because of his principles. Deadline Hollywood said that the actor is strict with his values and won't do sex scenes on camera."
Wow, that's a switch. For all the scuzzy actors willing to put money ahead of principle, this is an incredible turn-around. Well done Neal. We need many more such actors. A few dozen like Neal and maybe a real revolution could take place in Hollywood.
The second item was in today's press, and it was as encouraging as it was surprising. Here is how the report in the Age started the story: "More than 30 of Australia's leading child experts are calling for an unprecedented ban on the sale of adult magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse and other 'soft porn' material from newsagents, milk bars, convenience stores, supermarkets and petrol stations.
"The group has also asked Australia's censorship ministers to review the rules by which so-called lad mags – such as People, Zoo and Ralph - are reviewed, arguing that they are becoming increasingly explicit and contributing to the sexualisation of children."
Now that's something you don't see every day as well. Indeed, for years I and a handful of pro-family activists have been saying similar things, only to be howled down with scorn and derision. For two decades I have been called every name in the book for seeking to tighten up easy access to porn in the public.
"Wowser" has been a favourite term of abuse hurled at me so often, but plenty of other terms – some which cannot be printed here – have been levelled at me and others over the years. Thus it is amazing to see others finally calling for the same sort of thing we have been for so long.
I could write a book about all the flack I have had to put up with simply because I have been concerned about our children and the direction we are heading as a society. To simply argue that children should be protected from readily available exposure to sleaze has raised the wrath of the civil libertarians, the sleaze merchants, and so many of the trendy lefties in the mainstream media.
Indeed, consider one interview I did many years ago with the very same newspaper, the Age. In good faith I answered the journalist's questions about how television has a corrosive impact on families. But when I opened the May 9, 2000 Age the next day I saw a very ugly hatchet job on me.
The journalist did her best to try to make me look like a buffoon simply for expressing concerns about how TV standards were falling, with children especially in need of protection. I was representing the Australian Family Association, and several other pro-family groups were featured as well.
All of us were made to look like complete idiots, and the whole piece was one long snide attack on anyone who dared to express such concerns. Journalist Anne Crawford had a lengthy piece running over two pages, and it was all an ugly and childish attack on those of us who wanted to protect children and families.
The headline – if you can call it that – said it all. This is actually what it said: "The truth is that TV is probably the most evil force at work in the universe. It is destroying your mind. Trust me." Yes it even came with those words in bold.
The entire article was one long piece of mockery and contempt directed at the people that she interviewed. She seemed all sweetness and light when she interviewed me, but her fangs were certainly bared in the printed article.
This was quite common place treatment I must say. But at other times journalists would not even pretend to be polite and civil with me while conducting an interview. Often their contempt dripped out as we went back and forth. They sure hated us wowsers back then.
Those concerned about declining standards and the pornification of culture don't get a very good run today either. But at least here is one high-profile group taking some steps in the right direction. Hopefully more such activities will happen in the near future.
Does all this mean that the stranglehold of political correctness is beginning to weaken, and a return to common sense and decency is on the ascendency? Time will tell, but to have these two articles in the past few days does offer a ray of hope. Let us all hope and work toward it continuing.
http://ibtimes.com.au/articles/20100403/neal-mcdonough-fired-from-tv-job-after-refusing-sex-scenes.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/national/put-soft-porn-out-of-view-experts-20100404-rlnu.html