A bunch of Republican lawmakers in the Idaho state legislature is demanding that the federal government ban all depictions or even mentions of premarital sex on television — to protect the children, of course, the usual excuse for authoritarian laws.
Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.
“We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).
The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
But remember, they want “smaller government.” Except when they don’t.
47 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Gvlgeologist, FCD
March 20, 2013 at 9:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Next: go to the library and to bookstores and ban all books and magazines with depictions of premarital sex. Then go to the internet and censor all mention of premarital sex.
Because if you do that, you see, then abstinence-only sex “ed” will work. Because their students won’t know sex exists.
bcmystery
March 20, 2013 at 9:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Still, you have to admit, that one episode when Barney and Baby Bop started going at it kinda crossed the line.
Also, I shouldn’t have to add this, but you know there’s always someone, so …
[/snark]
Raging Bee
March 20, 2013 at 9:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Were children really safer when all mention of ess-ee-ex on TV was either censored or sanitized? A quick look at some of the dates in the Catholic Church child-rape scandal strongly implies they weren’t.
If it’s sexual abuse of children we’re worried about here, most of that comes from parents, uncles, and other adults the kids are forced to trust — and that sort of thing predates TV by centuries, and happens independent of any particular mass-communication media.
Gregory in Seattle
March 20, 2013 at 9:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It would be nice if someone could stand up and address the entire Legislature, with cameras rolling, to say, “Doesn’t the ‘smaller government’ ideal you whack off to mean that government should not be regulating television AT ALL? Doesn’t this bill prove that your ‘smaller government’ meme is a flat-out lie?”
Hey, a guy can dream.
Ellie
March 20, 2013 at 9:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, any movie about ol’ King David would be right out?
democommie
March 20, 2013 at 9:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Boy, talk about “57 channels (and nothin’ on)”
You know what would really work good? So, yeah, you ban all of the television that has any reference to pre-marital sex (and when they do have sex SHE always gets teh preggers!) and you show more WAR MOVIES. Then you give allathem kids gunz and see how many of ‘em get molested!
reddiaperbaby1942
March 20, 2013 at 9:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s right, if we don’t talk about it it doesn’t exist. Likewise, if we ignore poverty, or climate change, ignorance, disease or death, they’ll stop existing. The ostrich syndrome, perhaps?
zippythepinhead
March 20, 2013 at 9:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What about extramarital sex? Oops, that eliminates a lot of politicians. How’s this for a law: anytime a politician has an affair, they are banned from all media, no interviews, talk shows, campaign commercials, nada, zip, for life. Non-person, non-grata. You know, to protect the children. No, I’m not referring to a certain Senator from, uhhhh, where was it, not Idaho, not at all.
MikeMa
March 20, 2013 at 9:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As soon as they make extramarital affairs a death penalty offense, I’ll support this idiocy.
blf
March 20, 2013 at 9:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another wacky proposal, Arizona’s transgender community fights toilet ban: “Legislators in Arizona want to ban transgender people from using public toilets, showers and dressing rooms not associated with their birth gender …
“Arizona’s Republican representative, John Kavanagh, has been campaigning to make it a criminal offence for a transgender person to use a public facility associated with a gender other than what is recorded on his or her birth certificate.”
DaveL
March 20, 2013 at 9:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, I’m sure they don’t want their extramarital misadventures being mentioned on TV, either.
matty1
March 20, 2013 at 10:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m glad I don’t live in Idaho without sex on TV to watch what would do in the evenings?
Akira MacKenzie
March 20, 2013 at 10:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You have to learn to “think” like a conservative, Ed:
“Ah, but “limited government” is about protecting real freedoms: property rights, economic freedom, and of course, the right to keep and bear arms. So willie regulating the amount of pollution you dump into the environment, redistributing wealth from the rich to,the poor, and banning civilian access to military weaponry are all egregious violations of our liberty, policing the use of our genitalia to prevent moral turpitude is a perfectly legitimate function of government.”
“Besides, just like the Holy Bible didn’t mention evil-ution or rights for queer-mo-sexuals, our flawless and god-like Framers did not mention fucking in the sacred Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is not protected! “
Gretchen
March 20, 2013 at 10:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I guess the TV characters had better start prefacing each act or discussion of sex by loudly declaring that they never intend to get married. Then the sex won’t be premarital.
Problem solved.
Doug Little
March 20, 2013 at 10:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, good luck with that one.
Synfandel
March 20, 2013 at 10:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The corollary to Gretchen’s insightful point is that once you’ve had sex, you should never marry. That way you won’t have turned your sexual experiences into premarital sex. I’m sure Idaho Republicans will be heartened to have a good argument against marriage.
Moggie
March 20, 2013 at 10:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Are these time-wasters paid to symbolically wank around like this?
oranje
March 20, 2013 at 10:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Probably why I’m not an elected official, but I’m all in favour of safe premarital sex. Let them learn what it is, not tell them it’s this horrible, dirty thing they have to save for the one and only person they will/can ever love. How to be responsible with it. How to care for a partner.
Then again, I’m polyamorous, so my views on sex and relationships would cause fainting spells in the Idaho legislature.
As an aside, do they ban pornography in Idaho? I assume that would be right out if they’re worried about the mention of sex on television. Maybe North Korea can help them with an Internet filter.
cptdoom
March 20, 2013 at 10:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, even the premarital ban would eliminate Sarah Palin, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich from the airwaves when children were around. Hmmm, perhaps those kooky Idahoans have a point.
Ace of Sevens
March 20, 2013 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I guess this would mean Pat Robertson couldn’t not to have pre-marital sex.
Pierce R. Butler
March 20, 2013 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s only premarital sex if the characters involved actually then, um, marry.
Since gay marriage just doesn’t happen in Idaho, broadcasting gay sex will be completely kosher, right?
jamesramsey
March 20, 2013 at 10:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wouldn’t that mean that you couldn’t show portrayals of the Christmas story?
It may be an immaculate conception, but it was a conception none the less.
timgueguen
March 20, 2013 at 10:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s funny that they want all references banned, instead of adding a corollary that’s it’s perfectly all right to mention premarital sex if it’s portrayed as a horrible mistake and sinful. Especially if the people involve develop some horrible disease and die, and are shown being promptly sent to Hell.
redmann
March 20, 2013 at 10:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So the Framers wanted us to have unprotected sex??
democommie
March 20, 2013 at 10:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“So the Framers wanted us to have unprotected sex??”
Hey, redmann, I like the cut’o'yer’jib, dude!
No mention, no regulatin; dildoes and cockrings all around!
d.c.wilson
March 20, 2013 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But if the two characters are married, hard core depictions of fucking are perfectly fine!
So, they can have a Vegas wedding, fuck like rabbits, and then get a quickie divorce, Brittany-style. Because that doesn’t denigrate the sacred institution of marriage like them gays do.
If I were in the ID legislature, I’d offer an amendment calling for a ban on any mention or portrayal of guns, just to see how fast it would take these republicans to discover the 1st Amendment.
rabbitscribe
March 20, 2013 at 10:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m getting sick of all this “for the children” folderol from both sides of the aisle. What have the little bastards ever done for us?
raven
March 20, 2013 at 11:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In Reality land the US teenage pregnancy rate is at a 40 year low. They don’t want to censor nonmarital sex on TV because of the children. They want to because it is you know, yucky and evil. To some primitive tribes of Oogedy Boogedy cults any way.
”
Darrell Bolz (R) E-mail …. U.S. Army Reserve; farmer/rancher; L.D.S.; Bonneville County Commissioner for six years; East Central Idaho Private Industry Council; …”
Bolz is a Mormon!!! A member of a dictatorial abusive mind control cult. He wouldn’t know what is best for anyone if it crawled up his nose. Idaho has a large Mormon population and you are looking at what passes for Mormon thought in action.
The state of Utah delayed and tried to prevent cable TV from coming into Utah. Because the Mormons were afraid exposure to the outside world would make it harder to brainwash their kids.
blf
March 20, 2013 at 11:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Roasted, thems good eating.
Modusoperandi
March 20, 2013 at 11:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Moggie “Are these time-wasters paid to symbolically wank around like this?”
To be fair, it does keep them away from actually governing.
Didaktylos
March 20, 2013 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@#12 – Don;t they have sheep or pigs in Idaho?
kantalope
March 20, 2013 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ch1 – I Love Lucy marathon
ch2 – Leave it to Beav….Leave it to Dam….Leave it to River Clogging Mammal Marathon
ch3 – Father Knows Best Marathon
ch4 – Roy Rodgers Marathon
ch5 – In Search Of Marathon
ch….Rest of the Channels: Greatest Story Ever Told, brought to you by the NRA, Marathon
As for keeping the world safe for 6 year olds….every product in you house warns you to ‘keep away from children’ This is no idle warning.
Synfandel
March 20, 2013 at 11:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That was Mary’s conception, not Jesus’. According to Catholic dogma, Mary was born without the stain of original sin. We’re not told whether her conception was premarital, marital, or extramarital.
However, your point is valid: Mary was unmarried at the time of her encounter with the Phallus Dei.
Trebuchet
March 20, 2013 at 12:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah, Idaho. Nazis in the North, Mormons in the South, never the twain shall meet. Not even in the same time zone! My brother, for a while, was living near Couer d’Alene and working in Boise. He commuted once a week by way of Pendleton, OR, because the only road entirely in Idaho was two lanes, winding, and slow.
busterggi
March 20, 2013 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Next – a ban on all media that depict or mention that sex between married couples may be pleasurable.
baal
March 20, 2013 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dems should stand up and demand a bill that all programs must include sex and must have integral discussions on safer sex techniques, clear consent and negotiations over what’s in scope or not.
Gretchen
March 20, 2013 at 12:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wrote a blog post on the notion of “premarital sex” generally, jumping off from this.
roggg
March 20, 2013 at 1:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I get that there’s a lot of bat shit crazy people in the USA… there’s a percentage everywhere you go, but how did you get to the point where so many of your legislative bodies are collectively bat shit crazy?
sillose
March 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
government: out of my business, into every element of your personal life. where it belongs, dammit!
thebookofdave
March 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Moggie #17
That’s money well spent, at least until the Idaho voting public replace their government paid lunatics with actual politicians. A full-time congressional circle jerk is much less offensive or wasteful than any legislation they are likely to produce.
lofgren
March 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the penalty for pretending to have premarital sex should be fine of no less than 100,000,000 Monopoly dollars.
WMDKitty -- Survivor
March 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dude, I’ve been sitting here for five minutes, trying to formulate a response, and I’m finding it’s just so mind-numbingly stupid that the only thing I CAN say is: …What.
And uh… how hard is it to do what the rest of us do when we find something on the telly that we don’t like or find a bit uncomfortable or awkward, and change the damn channel? There’s a channel for damn near anything you can think of, including several that are nothing but religious programming!
Ichthyic
March 20, 2013 at 7:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
last minute authoritarian panic, as the re-election of Obama has started to force reality in on them and shatter their visions of an imagined 1950s utopia.
so, they all vote teaparty in a last ditch effort to resuscitate their failing dreams.
the only question is how much lasting damage there will be.
Ichthyic
March 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…I guess if Idaho gets their way, they won’t be able to show the Bible on TV any more. Lots of premarital sex in that book.
Red-Green in Blue
March 20, 2013 at 8:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So to draw the logical conclusion, pre-marital sex (whether acted, discussed, or implied) on TV is unacceptable before 2200, but marital sex on TV is OK at children’s teatime. I’m wondering what exactly it is about simulated marital sex that makes it acceptable viewing for children who are to be protected from portrayals of premarital sex.
I also note the legalistic attitude of the motion: apparently issues of consent, love, gender equality and the like seem not to be important to these Republicans, the only relevant matter being the piece of paper declaring them “man and wife”. Colour me unsurprised…
gratch
March 21, 2013 at 3:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s the full headline. Idaho: Ban all premarital sex on TV to protect younger generation. Younger Generation look up from wireless streaming Ipads in confusion, “TV? That thing Mom and Dad watch? Sure knock yourself out.”
skinnercitycyclist
March 21, 2013 at 7:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What about our precious bodily fluids?