Sex in the media vs violence in the media

[Achilles]

Based on a recent discussion in another thread, I'm curious to know how others view the apparent hypocrisy of being tolerant of violence while being intolerant of sex in the media (television, movies, video games, etc).

 

The argument had been made that the two were unrelated, however I don't think one has to look to hard to see that they are indeed very much related (as they are both potential barometers of "decency").

 

Are there valid argument for why shooting people is acceptable but seeing them naked is not? Looking forward to reading your responses.

 

Thanks!

[John Galt]

Personally, I hate censorship(especially government-mandated censorship), and I think the media(I'm including all 6 forms of media) should be allowed to give consumers(or viewers) whatever content they want.

[Corinthian]

Name one time that removing a sex scene from...whatever, would have compromised the integrity of the media. Please don't give a porno as an example. Sex scenes are, by and large, completely pointless, adding little to nothing to the work.

[jonathan7]

Name one time that removing a sex scene from...whatever, would have compromised the integrity of the media. Please don't give a porno as an example. Sex scenes are, by and large, completely pointless, adding little to nothing to the work.

 

Thats a matter of opinion and not fact. How about a love story involving sex between a husband and wife... is that ok? Interesting thought here; we're all a result of sex -

lots of people are having it right now! Do you find that offensive?

 

[Corinthian]

Media. I said MEDIA. This whole thing is about in THE MEDIA.

[jonathan7]

Media. I said MEDIA. This whole thing is about in THE MEDIA.

 

Ok; what about a biographical love story, about a husband and wife, and their deep love for one another? Doesn't sex in that still form media, and being a logical and needed part of the plotline?

 

Which would you watch if you had no other choice; a husband and wife having sex or cops and criminals in a shoot out?

[El Sitherino]

Cops and criminals, personally I find it more entertaining. Well, usually.

 

I have no problem with either being shown, honestly.

[Achilles]

Name one time that removing a sex scene from...whatever, would have compromised the integrity of the media. Please don't give a porno as an example. Sex scenes are, by and large, completely pointless, adding little to nothing to the work.

Media is supposed to be an outlet for artistic expression. Whether or not the addition or subtraction of any kind of scene compromises the integrity of the product is the decision of the artist, not the public. The public can make their own decisions (as individuals) as to whether or not they appreciate the artist product in question, but they don't get to decide the creator's vision (obvious exceptions such as Michael Bay don't apply).

 

I for one could probably rattle off a litany of movies (non-pornographic) that I would find far less meaningful without love/sex scenes.

 

Veering dangerously close to the actual topic/argument, I can also think of violent films that I would stake the same claim for. Obvious example that springs to mind is Saving Private Ryan. Can anyone who's seen Saving Private Ryan imagine watching it without any violence whatsoever and it having the same impact/message?

 

So, with that said, do you have any arguments for why violence is ok but sex isn't?

[Corinthian]

Actually, I've never seen Saving Private Ryan, so I really couldn't say.

 

Give me that litany, Achilles, my lad. I'm ready and waiting.

 

Can you imagine watching Braveheart without any of the violent scenes? What about Lord of the Rings? They'd have no impact. You'd get a Battle Tally of what had happened and who had died, but nothing else. There'd be nothing in it.

 

I propose that any time there's a sex scene, a Fade to Black would have served just as well. The same cannot be said for something like a battle.

[Achilles]

21 Grams

American Beauty

American Psycho

Boogie Nights

Brokeback Mountain

 

There's five just from the #-B in my collection. I didn't list movies that just happened to have sex scenes (that list would have been longer) rather movies that would be significantly different without them. I won't be going through my whole collection as I own hundreds of DVDs.

 

The whole point is that the argument you wish to present for violence in films (ala Braveheart or LotR) also applies for sex in films. You don't get to have it both ways. On what basis do you oppose sexual content in the media anyway? Can you plead a case for why it shouldn't be allowed (rather than why you think it isn't necessary)?

[Pho3nix]

I have no problem with either being shown, honestly.

I concur. It's weird how such a natural thing like sex is being portrayed as something "dirty" or "sinful".

[Corinthian]

It's not that it's dirty or sinful, it's that it's private. The whole idea gives me the creeps, because in movies or whatever, you're essentially a passive observer. And that quickly becomes voyeurism.

 

Never seen any of those, Achilles, so I really couldn't say, but you think that the way they jammed their ding-a-ling-dings into each other really made the movie any better? It couldn't have been handled with subtle innuendos and a fade to black?

 

I think sex scenes should be canned, for the most part. You can say what you will, but for the most part, they're for pornographic purposes. I can't imagine a situation where explicitly, graphically depicting the sex act is necessary for any reason.

[Tommycat]

Heavy gore and gratuitous sex are on equal terms for me, for basically the same reasons. If the level of gore is equal to the level of gore in say a movie like "Saw" I would definately see it equally as bad as a graphic sex scene and prefer my kids not to watch(were my kids not already horror film fanatics, how many 10 year olds nowadays know about Borris Carlov, and prefer Christopher Lee as Dracula), to prevent them from being subjected to that.

[Web Rider]

It's not that it's dirty or sinful, it's that it's private. The whole idea gives me the creeps, because in movies or whatever, you're essentially a passive observer. And that quickly becomes voyeurism.

 

Never seen any of those, Achilles, so I really couldn't say, but you think that the way they jammed their ding-a-ling-dings into each other really made the movie any better? It couldn't have been handled with subtle innuendos and a fade to black?

 

I think sex scenes should be canned, for the most part. You can say what you will, but for the most part, they're for pornographic purposes. I can't imagine a situation where explicitly, graphically depicting the sex act is necessary for any reason.

 

wait wait wait.

Before we go any further, lets get a definition of a "sex scene", because yes, there are some gratuitous sex scenes in a variety of movies(the 10 miniute Trinity-Neo scene), and there are some tasteful sex scenes in movies. Are we talking ANY scene that has sex in it? Because they are a variety of shades.

 

And I still propose that violence is worse than sex. Sex is natural, people do it all the time, I'm sure millions are doing it right now, and I'm sure there are probly 15 different porno shows running at this very moment.

 

You state earlier that LOTR would have no impact if the violence was left out. Well, how about a movie dealing with the life of a prostitute? Does not the movie lose it's impact if there are nice little GTA-style fade-away scenes and then an end shot with her getting the money and the guy driving off? Yes, it's not the greatest concept for a movie, but I'm not a screen-writer.

 

I think a lot of movies I've seen with sex scenes lose some of their impact, in that relationships seem a lot more "flat" without sex scenes. They're almost cutesey. Everyone knows that two people who love each other will eventually copulate together. The only movies I can recall at the moment with a story-line relevant sex scene that was still tasteful was "The Breed". Which Ironically from the other thread was a vampire movie. Viggo Mortensen's russian-mafia movie had some pretty hardcore sex scenes, but they were mostly short scenes and at least 2 of them were story-line relevant.

EDIT: Only "The Breed" was tasteful, Viggo's movie's scenes were NOT. But The movie was gritty and so was the sex, it worked.

 

I censor myself, I don't ask anyone to do it for me. I don't much like seeing two people f-ing each other's brains out for no reason, it's why I don't enjoy prono, but I don't think it's the responsibility of some media mogul to make sex "tasteful". Lets face it, sex isn't a pretty act...and I'll leave it there.

 

And I do think some movies are lessened without their sex scene. I think it provides a more in-depth relationship than these cutsey romantic BS movies where the closest two people get to touching is holding hands while looking at christmas lights. Humans are pleasure-seekers by nature, to ignore the issure of physical intamacy is like ignoring part of humanity.

[Darth InSidious]

Based on a recent discussion in another thread, I'm curious to know how others view the apparent hypocrisy of being tolerant of violence while being intolerant of sex in the media (television, movies, video games, etc).

Page three of The Sun disagrees.

 

And no, I'm not linking to it. You can look it up for yourself if you must.

[Jae Onasi]

Explain please how you can put both violence and sex on the same measuring scale--'decency' is very subjective, and sex and violence are two very different things. Sex is generally included in media for different reasons than violence. The levels of sex or violence that are acceptable to someone may be quite different (e.g. high level of violence is OK but high level of sex is not, or vice-versa), and it's highly dependent on intent (e.g. seeing violence and nude people in Schindler's List to show the horrors of concentration camps, vs. snuff/rape porn that are simply gratuitous sex/violence, and this is by no means meant to be comprehensive--there are lots of different situations where sex/violence are appropriate or inappropriate).

 

I don't watch a lot of programs with either high amounts of sex or violence, but that's my preference.

[Web Rider]

Explain please how you can put both violence and sex on the same measuring scale--'decency' is very subjective, and sex and violence are two very different things. Sex is generally included in media for different reasons than violence. The levels of sex or violence that are acceptable to someone may be quite different (e.g. high level of violence is OK but high level of sex is not, or vice-versa), and it's highly dependent on intent (e.g. seeing violence and nude people in Schindler's List to show the horrors of concentration camps, vs. snuff/rape porn that are simply gratuitous sex/violence, and this is by no means meant to be comprehensive--there are lots of different situations where sex/violence are appropriate or inappropriate).

 

I don't watch a lot of programs with either high amounts of sex or violence, but that's my preference.

 

Exactly, there are lots of different context's that sexual acts fit into, from holding hands(which is a sexual act, just not one of copulation, hence it being banned in many religious private schools), to kissing, to snuggling, to making out, bondage, rape, nice sex, rough sex, ect...

 

Just like there are lots of different levels and contexts to violence. From a fistfight, a schoolyard scuffle, verbal abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse, assault, assault with a deadly weapon(almost wrote woman!), murder, accidental manslaughter, ect.. I use legal terms here because they are the most particular of each case, which is different.

 

Now, we've already shown that violence and sex have their shades, like anything else. And we all know that what is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me and the reverse is also true. And what's going on is always relevant to why it's going on, a rape scene has a much different context and reason for it happening than a cutsey nose-nose scene.

 

The point we're really arguing is not that sex is or isn't acceptable, but what defines a sexual act(since all acts of physical closeness are sexual in nature), and what context that sexual act has to be in to make it OK. This is the exact same thing we do for violence.

 

And more often than not, the sexuality of a movie or scene is entirely dependant on the violence context.

 

Take Mr Brooks for an example, the sex scenes were relevant to the movie because that's when he'd kill people, it was one of those twisted fetishes. The violence was also relevant to the movie, without one or the other, the viewer could not get an accurate picture of "why" Mr Brooks did those things.

[Sabretooth]

I believe in liberty for both sex and violence in media, regardless of content. Media works are eventually art, and hence dependent on the artist(s). The only difference between them and conventional art (books, songs, fine art, crafts, etc.) is that the former are more popular with people, hence leading to exploitation.

 

If sex/violence is depicted overly in, say, books - nobody says a thing, although a lot of sex parts in books are often explicit, as compared to movies. Same applies for violence, as books often describe it explicitly. Yet, nobody says a thing about that, concluding it to be the artist's vision. Movies, video games etc. need to be treated the same.

 

It is the crew's choice whether they want a sex scene or the level of violence they want, and not the viewer's.

[Jae Onasi]

Media works are eventually art

 

That's highly debatable.

[SilentScope001]

I propose that any time there's a sex scene, a Fade to Black would have served just as well. The same cannot be said for something like a battle.

 

OT: I don't know, a fade to black, then fade out to see the bloody carnage...that could be much more effective than seeing the actual attack.

[Achilles]

It's not that it's dirty or sinful, it's that it's private. The whole idea gives me the creeps, because in movies or whatever, you're essentially a passive observer. And that quickly becomes voyeurism.

I'm not sure how these concepts apply to sex and not to every other thing you see in a movie. I understand that you see them as separate, but that doesn't mean that they actually are.

 

Never seen any of those, Achilles, so I really couldn't say, but you think that the way they jammed their ding-a-ling-dings into each other really made the movie any better?

I believe that I've already clearly stated that I do.

 

It couldn't have been handled with subtle innuendos and a fade to black?

Nope.

 

I think sex scenes should be canned, for the most part. You can say what you will, but for the most part, they're for pornographic purposes. I can't imagine a situation where explicitly, graphically depicting the sex act is necessary for any reason.

I acknowledge that this is your opinion, however these are not arguments for your position.

 

Page three of The Sun disagrees.

Thank you for pointing out that I did not specify who's media I was referring to in the original post

 

While I do think that these arguments can apply to most the media in many cultures, it should be pointed out that there are also many in which they do not apply (i.e. Western Europe, etc).

 

Point taken and appreciated, Darth InSidious

 

Explain please how you can put both violence and sex on the same measuring scale--'decency' is very subjective, and sex and violence are two very different things.

I think you're closer to the heart of the argument than you may realize. Why is it that we consider sex in the media indecent, but are generally much more tolerant toward violence?

 

Taking the Bourne movies as an example (feel free to introduce any other applicable example that you wish), we can watch a guy get beaten to a pulp, stabbed with a pen repeatedly, arm gruesomely snapped at the elbow, leg broken, and then get up and throw himself out of a window into the street below and that's PG-13. Had we added naked breasts or buttocks, it would have been rated R.

 

So how do we say "sex is indecent" and not say the same for violence. You and a few others seem to want to argue that violence is sometimes necessary to tell a story. And I would agree. I would also say that sex is sometimes necessary to tell a story and if one of those things has to be inherently considered "indecent", it shouldn't be the sex (natural act).

 

Sex is generally included in media for different reasons than violence.

While I'm sure that this is true in some cases, it still sounds like a generalization.

 

The levels of sex or violence that are acceptable to someone may be quite different (e.g. high level of violence is OK but high level of sex is not, or vice-versa), and it's highly dependent on intent (e.g. seeing violence and nude people in Schindler's List to show the horrors of concentration camps, vs. snuff/rape porn that are simply gratuitous sex/violence, and this is by no means meant to be comprehensive--there are lots of different situations where sex/violence are appropriate or inappropriate).

No question. What is the justification for having a higher tolerance for violence than sex? Since the example is very much related to the thread, I'll pose my question from before:

 

Do you shield your children from video game violence with the same diligence that you do video game sex? Are you as concerned (less concerned? more concerned) about them seeing the Korriban fight scene with Darth Sion as you are them seeing VV?

Your characters are trying to kill Darth Sion. VV is talking to you while wearing suggestive clothing. Which of these things has the greater potential to do lasting harm to the development of your children and why?

 

I don't watch a lot of programs with either high amounts of sex or violence, but that's my preference.

Please operationally define what "high amount of sex" and "high amounts of violence" means for you.

[Corinthian]

Well, gee, Achilles, I'm glad you acknowledge that this is my opinion. I sometimes have a hard time figuring out what's my opinion. I'm beholden to you.

 

Violence isn't exactly something that's new to any human being. Fight or flight is coded into us nearly from day one. Sex, on the other hand, emerges in adolescence. Exposing a child prior to adolescence...*whistles*...bad mojo. Baaaaad mojo.

 

Besides, how does the sex scene make anything better, a lot of the time? You say it does, but you fail to elaborate.

[Achilles]

Violence isn't exactly something that's new to any human being. Fight or flight is coded into us nearly from day one.

So your argument is that violence is also a natural act for us. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that. So what makes it less damaging and/or less dangerous than another natural act such as sex?

 

Sex, on the other hand, emerges in adolescence.

No, sexual maturity happens at adolescence (aka the physical ability to reproduce).

 

Exposing a child prior to adolescence...*whistles*...bad mojo. Baaaaad mojo.

I'm afraid you'll need to explain what this means. "Baaaad mojo" doesn't tell me very much.

 

Besides, how does the sex scene make anything better, a lot of the time? You say it does, but you fail to elaborate.

How about you defend some of your arguments for a change. Then I'll answer some more of your questions.

[Corinthian]

I asked first.

[Achilles]

From post #1:

Are there valid argument for why shooting people is acceptable but seeing them naked is not?

Actually, I asked first.

 

If you don't intend to address the question or make any attempt to defend your arguments once they have been rebuked, then I can't imagine there is any reason for us to continue corresponding with one another.