With the season of love right around the corner we can expect to see a lot of public display of affection (PDA). PDA has seemed to gain a lot of criticism due to the seemingly crass nature of it.
Yet, the position that PDA is disgusting and inappropriate is simply contradictory to a culture that fosters such actions. Public displays of affection have been a huge part of social media, culture, and the progress of acceptance in society.
Simply saying that public displays of affection are inappropriate and unacceptable doesn’t make sense as it is deeply ingrained in our culture and plays a key role in the progress of society.
The first issue with a position that dubs PDA as gross is the fact that it doesn’t really distinguish between what is appropriate affection and what is not. Affection comes in all forms, shapes and sizes. From high fives to kisses on the cheek, affection can be shown in various ways.
But when does it become inappropriate? The line that is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable is simply too vague to say the least. The subjective nature of the matter is just another way to dub something as inappropriate when in reality it may very well not be. For one person, hugging your mom is appropriate, and for another, it may be obscene. Simply saying PDA, in general, is wrong, for it eliminates a lot of things people can do in public.
But PDA isn’t just something that is a random act when one considers the culture we come from. From TV shows to highly rated blockbuster hits, there are countless expressions of affection in media. Nowadays media and entertainment are becoming more and more liberal in their content. Juxtaposed to a film from the 1950’s, the movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” would be considered something that could have come straight out of a Playboy handbook.
However, this is what social media has become, and in turn it has impressed into us a set of beliefs, perhaps even subconscious ones that we can be much more public and blunt about our affection than any other time in American history. Media and entertainment have played a huge role in our development as individuals, and that progression includes our openness in public with our affection.
Another origin of PDA very well may be the culture we have all grown up around. In an age of skinny jeans and “iDevices,” we are seeing that our culture is changing drastically. Not only are we more liberal than our ancestral counterparts but we are also have many more resources at our disposal.
We are now able to connect with each other through text message, social media, and even webcam. This serves to create a much more casual, as well as comfortable, relationship with the person at hand.
Public affection becomes a much more casual experience rather than a lapse of judgment. Affection itself becomes more and more casual with the increase of connections.
Simply put, relationships are much different in comparison to what they were even 5 years ago. Dubbing PDA as an inappropriate thing is incorrect as our definition and ideas of what is appropriate are evolving every day.
Another point to make about PDA is the fact that perhaps it is just another spoke in the wheel that is moving society forward. While PDA may seem crass and too blunt to be progressive in any way, it somewhat opens up people to being more acceptable of one another. The casual nature of PDA allows for people to be able to express their affection on such a public scale that it reduces the amount of judgment that would happen if they lived in a society with no PDA at all.
This is easily seen in areas that are extremely traditional in their values. With less people doing it, or PDA being less accepted, there is a higher chance of affection in public being something that is more judged and weird. We are just beginning to accept a large quantity of these new things that used to seem weird.
Holding on to ancient beliefs of what is too promiscuous furthers the idea that other people’s lives and “weird” actions are up for us to control and judge. That issue is beyond reason as it couldn’t make less sense to take away someone’s freedom just because you don’t like the way it looks.
PDA should have some checks, of course. There is a limit to how much PDA is isolated in its effects to the two people involved. It’s probably not the best thing to scar little children for their lives by straddling your boyfriend in the McDonald’s Play Pen. Public areas are privy to this sort of obscenity, at which point it may be necessary to simply use your own judgment to walk up to the two people dry humping and asking them to stop. If they don’t, it is up to you to either walk out or in your anger, murder them in cold blood.
Either of your reactions is not in congruence with the law as no legal documents actually require any action to be taken upon two people sexing it up in public.
These arguments aren’t simply to protect a person’s right to stick their tongue down another person’s throat while they secretly become aroused by the thought of other people watching them; these are arguments to protect a person’s freedom to do as they please in a scenario of judgment that would otherwise exist if they were not protect in their freedoms. We all live in a world where this is true and no matter what we are forced to abide by the insane restrictions that society places.
I would be damned if that is what Josh Radnor, one of the amazing actors on How I Met Your Mother, actually does because he probably doesn’t. Either way the issue of whether or not people should be allowed to engage in PDA isn’t only one of personal freedom in sexuality, but also one of a person’s freedom in his or her life’s decisions.
We should be allowing for people to decide themselves because if they don’t get to decide what they want with their lives, we might as well become a nation that places restriction after restriction on people. We all have different beliefs and moral systems; deciding which one is the one we should abide by is perhaps the most obstructive action that we can place in front of the wheel that is the progression of society when it comes to accepting people for who they all are.