Sex in the media vs violence in the media

[jonathan7]

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.

 

What on earth are you on about? Show me any empirical data that suggests a child seeing sex before adolescence is 'bad mojo'? Children ask about sex; i.e. how are babies made; its a natural question to ask; I cant see how if a child were to end up seeing sex it would be 'bad mojo'.

[Web Rider]

What on earth are you on about? Show me any empirical data that suggests a child seeing sex before adolescence is 'bad mojo'? Children ask about sex; i.e. how are babies made; its a natural question to ask; I cant see how if a child were to end up seeing sex it would be 'bad mojo'.

 

I personally find it worse to meet teens who know jack about sex. Much less the tweens having sex at 13 'cause their parents never exposed them to it and they followed the first urges they had.

[ET Warrior]

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

As others have pointed out, you provide no reason why exposing a pre-adolescent child to sex is a bad thing. Simply saying it does not make it so. In fact, I would postulate that such an exposition would have little to no effect on a pre-adolescent, simply because children at that age are pretty much asexual.

 

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

How do the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings make anything better? There is no need to SEE the battle itself, simply build up to it, fade to black, then pan over the results of the battle. In fact, a lot of things can be removed from movies. Doesn't mean they should.

[Corinthian]

Yeah, I'm sure the Battle of Helm's Deep would have been really good if they had just had that old guy loose the arrow, it goes black, and then it comes up a second later with Gandalf watching the orcs flee into the Huorns. That'd be real nice. Sex, on the other hand, is rarely used for any purpose other than as a ticket selling cop-out.

 

Achilles, I've got no ground to argue from. I admit that. Neither do you, really. You're claiming that sex makes the movie better. I claim it makes it no better. Both of us are arguing from an opinion platform.

[Achilles]

You're claiming that sex makes the movie better.

No, I'm arguing that there are some movies for which sex is necessary to tell the story. Just as you are arguing (and I agree) that some movies require violence to tell their story.

 

The purpose for the thread (as I recently reminded you) is to discuss the hypocrisy behind the argument that violence is ok but sex is not.

[Web Rider]

Yeah, I'm sure the Battle of Helm's Deep would have been really good if they had just had that old guy loose the arrow, it goes black, and then it comes up a second later with Gandalf watching the orcs flee into the Huorns. That'd be real nice. Sex, on the other hand, is rarely used for any purpose other than as a ticket selling cop-out.

 

Except in the uncut version, when the Uruk-hai run away, the forest of Fangorn has moved to Helm's Deep and the angry trees murder the remains of the Uruk army. You don't see much, but you hear screaming orcs and the murderous cries of the trees with a lot of thrashing of the woods and pounding sounds.

[ET Warrior]

Yeah, I'm sure the Battle of Helm's Deep would have been really good if they had just had that old guy loose the arrow, it goes black, and then it comes up a second later with Gandalf watching the orcs flee into the Huorns. That'd be real nice. Sex, on the other hand, is rarely used for any purpose other than as a ticket selling cop-out.

So, your reasoning appears to be that the violence in movies is necessary because it makes the movie more entertaining to watch, and therefore will sell more tickets.

 

However, it is not acceptable for sex to be in movies for the purpose of making the movie more entertaining to watch and therefore sell more tickets?

[Balderdash]

Achilles, I've got no ground to argue from. I admit that. Neither do you, really. You're claiming that sex makes the movie better. I claim it makes it no better. Both of us are arguing from an opinion platform.

As Achilles has said, there are an abundance of movies that require showing sex in order to tell the story as it was intended to be told. Fact. You apparently haven't seen very many movies, or maybe you just avoid movies with any sex in them. He is arguing from the position of one who has demonstrated that he is conversant with the subject matter of the discussion. On the evidence I've seen, in my opinion, the same can not be said for you.

 

The fact that it is often necessary to graphically illustrate violence (in order to avoid cumbersome storytelling and expository dialogue) does not detract from the fact that the same is often true of sex.

[Achilles]

You apparently haven't seen very many movies, or maybe you just avoid movies with any sex in them.

The search function isn't at 100% right now, so I can't confirm whether or not it was him, but IIRC Corinthian has previously stated that he "hates" sex.

 

Again, apologies in advance if I am attributing this quote to the wrong person.

[Corinthian]

Definitely wasn't me. I just despise the commercialization of sex.

[jonathan7]

Definitely wasn't me. I just despise the commercialization of sex.

 

But you don't despise the commercialization of violence?

[El Sitherino]

You people need to despise the commercialization of anything. Things should be done for a reason.

[Darth InSidious]

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

Of course, this only really applies to the media. It's still illegal here for a shop to display a naked mannequin....

[Corinthian]

Hey, violence isn't a private thing.

[jonathan7]

Hey, violence isn't a private thing.

 

Your position quite frankly is highly illogical, you also seem to have avoided answering any of my more difficult questions.

 

In the rules for KC it is stated that;

 

When discussing a controversial topic, it’s alright to post your feelings, but you are encouraged to support your stance with solid reasoning.

 

I'm affraid I have yet to see any solid reasoning in your arguments; indeed I have to say I think people seeing violence over sex is far more serious. Indeed do you not think that as violence isn't a private things the need to guard against it is even higher? Why is it the glamourization and comercialization of sex shouldn't be allowed, but its fine to do that with violence? I'm sure the hollywood glamourization of violence is indeed a great concern; what are we really teaching our kids? I would suggest that America has the highest per capita number of serial killers due to the hypocritical and illogicals stance that is taken out against sex and not violence. Basically we (the west) are teaching our kids that is fine to go out and hit people; but heaven forbid abit of nudity!

[lukeiamyourdad]

Sex can be useful to the story. Hell, it can mean everything. And no, I'm not talking about porn.

 

 

Even a rape scene can make the difference. For example, Irréversible, by Gaspar Noé. In it, there is a rape scene lasting a whole 9 minutes, filmed in a single take from a single angle (in order to not eroticise the scene) and relatively graphic. It's an endless 9 minutes with a very courageous Monica Bellucci (accepting to put herself in such a position is pretty insane). The movie would mean nothing without this scene. It charges you with incredible disgust which makes the tragedy befalling the characters even more powerful. At the "end" of the movie (it starts with the ending, like Nolan's Memento), you get to see the touching love story between characters of Alex and Marcus. It makes you go:"Damn! Why them of all the people?! Why?!" It makes the tragedy very powerful. Had it not include that violent rape scene, the movie simply wouldn't have been the same. It would be meaningless. By subjecting the viewer to such horror, Noé was able to create greater emotions and as such a greater movie.

 

 

Of course, the same can be said for a sensual sex scene in a totally different movie. I can see beyond the simple "two people having sex" and try and look at a sex scene for it's display of sensuality and love between two characters. When well filmed, it can mean so much more. It can give the relationship a real meaning and a sensuality that wasn't there before.

 

 

Many movies could remove their sex scenes because it is meaningless and stupid (Neo-Trinity has been mentioned before and needs to be mentioned again). However, others are useful to the plot and the characterization. It demands an open mind from the viewer. It demands the viewer to see the scene as more then just sex. It demands the viewer to understand what the director is trying to tell.

[Jae Onasi]

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?

I'm sure there's some psych/soc reason but I haven't researched it.

 

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.

I think that level of violence should have received an R rating myself.

 

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).

I didn't actually say violence is necessary to tell a story. However, I won't deny that some stories are about violent or sexual situations and thus violence and sex become requirements.

 

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

Well, I _did_ say 'generally'....

 

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:

What scale are you using to measure either? Why do you think they should be measured on the same scale?

My tolerance for violence may be different from my tolerance for sex, and it's definitely different for me as an adult than it is for my kids. The only thing violence and sex have in common is that both are commonly seen in media. I'm not trying to dodge the question there--I just don't agree that they should be measured on the same scale to begin with. It's like trying to use the same scale to measure the weight of oranges and the brightness of light.

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?

They haven't seen either, and won't for quite some time.

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?

At the risk of sounding dodgy again, it depends on the child and the age and the intent of the violence/sex. My son handles cartoonish violence just fine, my daughter gets nightmares. And speaking entirely generally, straight males are affected differently by a naked woman than straight females. And being a very medically oriented family, we're likely to be more tolerant of nudity than a lot of other social conservatives. We have books of anatomy around and don't mind if the kids look at the different pictures and ask questions. Are they going to be allowed to watch porn? No--I think that's a crass take-off on something that is supposed to be an intimate, loving and respectful act.

 

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

Depends on the situation, but for a quick and dirty benchmark, anything rated R or higher in either category.

[lukeiamyourdad]

What scale are you using to measure either? Why do you think they should be measured on the same scale?

My tolerance for violence may be different from my tolerance for sex, and it's definitely different for me as an adult than it is for my kids. The only thing violence and sex have in common is that both are commonly seen in media. I'm not trying to dodge the question there--I just don't agree that they should be measured on the same scale to begin with. It's like trying to use the same scale to measure the weight of oranges and the brightness of light.

 

 

No, there is more in common. They both are factors in the rating of a movie or game, thus society considers them to be both somewhat harmful in some way or another. At the moment, US society (and many other, but we're not discussing that...) considers sex to be more harmful then violence. As such, seeing sex on TV will bring great controversy while Jack Bauer can torture whoever he want. I'm talking the main TV stations here, not HBO.

 

The famous Super Bowl half-time show where Janet Jackson showed a breast shows this perfectly. In many other country, this would be a non-issue. Indeed, there are fashion posters in some European cities where breasts can be seen more clearly then what Jackson showed and people aren't too bothered by it.

 

Then there's the strange amount of penis in many 13+ (even some with lower ratings) german movies I've seen. The same can't be said for the US, where showing the male organ would probably lead to at least an R rating, whether seeing it was sexual or not. By the way, in the movies concerned, it was platonic and nothing more then 2 seconds, wasn't meant to create arousal or anything.

 

But I'm diverting from the subject too much right now.

 

I do agree however, that both scales are different and that both cannot be judged on the same factors. This is just stating the obvious.

 

The problem is not what sociologists do with the problematic, it's what regulatory elements do. Currently, there is only one rating for a movie. It includes both violence and sex under the same banner. Yes, there are details available, but they are often ignored.

 

What I can pull out from your different scales argument, is that the rating system does not seem to properly reflect some consumers' concerns about different elements. The best course of action would be a separate rating for both sex and violence. For example, a movie could be rated R for violence but PG for sexual content. It would provide better information.

On the other hand, the consumers might end up being bombarded with too much information and end up noticing the higher rating only, making the entire measure a flop for the most part.

 

Personally, I don't give a damn right now. Maybe when I have kids, it'll be different, I'll have to be more vigilant about ratings and I'll be more careful about what's in my house. I might also wish for better information when it comes to ratings in entertainment. For now, I'm just enjoying youth

 

 

Depends on the situation, but for a quick and dirty benchmark, anything rated R or higher in either category.

 

To be brutally honest, that is the lousiest benchmark. 300 for example, was only 13+ here. Yet, when I saw it, I truly believed it should have been 16+.

 

What Achilles was asking for was for something along the lines of if it included X, Y and Z, this is what I would consider high violence...etc. Pretty much, a way to measure the violence.

 

Of course, this can be subjective. It is actually a huge amount of work if you want to justify each and every factor in a more objective way. Better leave that to sociologists and psychologists

[MJ-W4]

Sex can be useful to the story. Hell, it can mean everything. And no, I'm not talking about porn.

 

Even a rape scene can make the difference. For example, Irréversible, by Gaspar Noé. In it, there is a rape scene lasting a whole 9 minutes, filmed in a single take from a single angle (in order to not eroticise the scene) and relatively graphic. It's an endless 9 minutes with a very courageous Monica Bellucci (accepting to put herself in such a position is pretty insane). The movie would mean nothing without this scene. It charges you with incredible disgust which makes the tragedy befalling the characters even more powerful. At the "end" of the movie (it starts with the ending, like Nolan's Memento), you get to see the touching love story between characters of Alex and Marcus. It makes you go:"Damn! Why them of all the people?! Why?!" It makes the tragedy very powerful. Had it not include that violent rape scene, the movie simply wouldn't have been the same. It would be meaningless. By subjecting the viewer to such horror, Noé was able to create greater emotions and as such a greater movie.

 

Of course, the same can be said for a sensual sex scene in a totally different movie. I can see beyond the simple "two people having sex" and try and look at a sex scene for it's display of sensuality and love between two characters. When well filmed, it can mean so much more. It can give the relationship a real meaning and a sensuality that wasn't there before.

 

Many movies could remove their sex scenes because it is meaningless and stupid (Neo-Trinity has been mentioned before and needs to be mentioned again). However, others are useful to the plot and the characterization. It demands an open mind from the viewer. It demands the viewer to see the scene as more then just sex. It demands the viewer to understand what the director is trying to tell.

-> Insert post #43 here

 

I entirely agree, and Noé's film isn't the only one by far. On the other hand, I've noticed that quite a number of Hollywood films take the 'Neo' road to poo.

 

Interesting tidbit: Noé ≠ Neo

[Web Rider]

Depends on the situation, but for a quick and dirty benchmark, anything rated R or higher in either category.

 

There are no "categories". Ratings are based on the content of the movie, and were only substantially used rather recently, ie: most movies before the 70's are unrated. It's not that they're too horrid to be rated, they just didn't get one. History of the World, Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles, to name a few movies that would be doing well to get an "R" just for how politically incorrect they are.

 

And, as exampled, these movies contain sexuality, and a little, mostly humurous violence, but are still rated R.

 

I think Good Will Hunting got an R rating simply for language. Saying "oh if it gets an R rating", is a terrible way to judge if it's "too much".

 

A movie really only needs to show one bare breast and it's given an R. The use of the word "f---" will get a movie an "R" rating. And I'm not sure how they do violence, there was lots of it in LOTR, but it got PG-13 and was called "frightening images of battle".

 

And there's a LOOOOOOOOOONG list of movies from the early days of the ratings system that would earn much higher ratings now.

[Jae Onasi]

Achilles had asked for what I personally thought was acceptable/not acceptable levels of violence and/or sex--the R rating's a useful starting point, and that's why I said it was 'quick and dirty'. There are going to be exceptions on a lot of these things, of course.

 

Maybe the rating system should be altered to something like what TV ratings have gone to--rated at a certain level with qualifiers that it was rated that way because of violence, language, sexual content, etc.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Achilles had asked for what I personally thought was acceptable/not acceptable levels of violence and/or sex--the R rating's a useful starting point, and that's why I said it was 'quick and dirty'. There are going to be exceptions on a lot of these things, of course.

 

Well, he was asking to operationally define both concepts, being what constitutes for you high violence and high sex. I'm not entirely certain about the usage of the word "operationalize" in English but in French, it's essentially making a problematic analyzable.

 

But seriously, unless you have a lot of time to lose, that is a death trap. You'd end up having to justify every single criteria. Considering this is just an internet forum and not a research that will be published, it's not worth it.

 

Maybe the rating system should be altered to something like what TV ratings have gone to--rated at a certain level with qualifiers that it was rated that way because of violence, language, sexual content, etc.

 

It could work, but in the case of Silentscope, where he's apparently not offended by extremely mild (if my memory is correct, girls in bikinis and such) sexual depictions in the medias. As such, saying that there is nudity might mean a simple breast or a full sex scene. Ratings still do not provide enough information. In the end, the best judge is you (not you Jae, you like in anyone...me and my Gallicisms...) and if you're offended by something you just saw, well, too bad, you just saw it.

 

ESRB ratings are much more detailed, but even then, it's not possible to cover all the information a consumer might want in the tiny little white space behind the box.

 

Ratings will never be 100% foolproof but they have a purpose and up to now, I feel they've done a decent job.

[Jae Onasi]

But seriously, unless you have a lot of time to lose, that is a death trap. You'd end up having to justify every single criteria.

Well, it has to be broad enough to cover a lot, and no, I don't want to write a dissertation on it either (violence where only hangnails are cut off is OK, unless it's more than 3 hangnails, then it falls into the gray area, and if hangnails with skin come off in more than 2 fingers but less then 3.2, then it is a light gray issue, and 3.21 to 4.65 makes it a dark gray issue, and 10 hangnails with skin is Right Out). The general categories in the ratings system cover most situations. I don't agree with some of the violence that's categorized as PG-13--some of the very intense violence that's allowed in PG-13 belongs under the R category instead.

 

 

It could work, but in the case of Silentscope, where he's apparently not offended by extremely mild (if my memory is correct, girls in bikinis and such) sexual depictions in the medias. As such, saying that there is nudity might mean a simple breast or a full sex scene. Ratings still do not provide enough information. In the end, the best judge is you (not you Jae, you like in anyone...me and my Gallicisms...) and if you're offended by something you just saw, well, too bad, you just saw it.

 

ESRB ratings are much more detailed, but even then, it's not possible to cover all the information a consumer might want in the tiny little white space behind the box.

 

Ratings will never be 100% foolproof but they have a purpose and up to now, I feel they've done a decent job.

 

No, the ESRB isn't detailed enough to cover everything, but it's a decent start for telling me the definitively OK stuff and the definitively 'bad' stuff. If it falls in the gray area and I'm wondering if it's going to be acceptable for my kids, I'll consult a couple sites I trust will give me a heads up on that kind of thing, such as Plugged In. It does a good job of telling me what kind of questionable content might show up and I can make a better choice that way. Ignore the preachy parts if you don't like that kind of thing.

 

I'd like to see more family shows where we all can sit down together and I don't have to worry about content. There's been a definitive trend in the last 30+ years towards more sexual content and more violence, e.g. it was news when a bare butt showed on NYPD Blue about 15 years back, and now we see bare bodies pretty regularly. We certainly see more violence on TV than 20-30 years back. Shows that are labeled as 'family shows' sometimes have content that I think is not so family oriented due to violence or subject matter. I know shows like 'the Waltons' and 'The Cosby Show' are safe, but I wouldn't mind watching something newer now and then.

[lukeiamyourdad]

No, the ESRB isn't detailed enough to cover everything, but it's a decent start for telling me the definitively OK stuff and the definitively 'bad' stuff. If it falls in the gray area and I'm wondering if it's going to be acceptable for my kids, I'll consult a couple sites I trust will give me a heads up on that kind of thing, such as Plugged In. It does a good job of telling me what kind of questionable content might show up and I can make a better choice that way. Ignore the preachy parts if you don't like that kind of thing.

 

 

Ugh...reading the banner, I saw "A Website by Focus on the Family". I suppose that if one is looking for info on if something is family friendly, that's where to look at...

 

Anyway, that's not my point, only my opinion about all types of organizations that try to shovel their values down people's throat, left and right, up and down, etc, etc, etc.

 

The problem I see with this, is that you needed to search on a third party to acquire proper information. I do not know how the different organizations that rate movies, games, etc. find the funding in the US, but here, they're government funded, in other words, my taxes. I'd expect better services from them.

 

Even if they gave better information, I doubt most consumers, in today's world, have the time and stamina to do the necessary research before buying the item. All in all, perhaps the best course of action would be posting the information on the official website of X rating board regarding each and every game, movie, etc. The people who rate probably took notes as to why they gave it such a rating. I wonder how hard would it be to give that information to the consumers.

 

It would be a better, more objective source of information then a Christian right group or a raging Psychologist's website.

 

 

I'd like to see more family shows where we all can sit down together and I don't have to worry about content. There's been a definitive trend in the last 30+ years towards more sexual content and more violence, e.g. it was news when a bare butt showed on NYPD Blue about 15 years back, and now we see bare bodies pretty regularly. We certainly see more violence on TV than 20-30 years back. Shows that are labeled as 'family shows' sometimes have content that I think is not so family oriented due to violence or subject matter. I know shows like 'the Waltons' and 'The Cosby Show' are safe, but I wouldn't mind watching something newer now and then.

 

 

Well, I won't disagree about violence in the more "adult" themed show. In kids shows however, I find that it's actually less violent today then before. If you look at the 80's and early 90's kids shows, they were pretty violent...today...meh...

 

After Pokemon, it seems like we're seeing so many shows trying to have proxies fight. It makes things look ridiculous, but somewhat non-violent.

 

As far as showing more bare bodies...I'm not too sure about this. I do remember seeing a few blacked out butts and allusions to nudity but not nudity itself. There is more skin shown but nothing more then what I would find by simply walking out of the door of my house...

 

 

Again, this discussion should not include HBO.

[MJ-W4]

As far as showing more bare bodies...I'm not too sure about this. I do remember seeing a few blacked out butts and allusions to nudity but not nudity itself. There is more skin shown but nothing more then what I would find by simply walking out of the door of my house...

I remember an episode of "The Streets of San Francisco" in the seventies where the showed a fully naked stripper in some shady club. It was the topic at school for about a fortnight and absolutely no-one came up with the idea it was debatable.