Why is Sex considered worse than violence in movies and on TV?

[Ultimate Ninja]

This topic may not be appropriate for everyone. No offense intended, just a discussion of why something is thought of in a certain way.

This might be a controversial topic, but I'm going there. Think about it, sex can create new life, violence does the opposite of that.

Example, I can watch 24, and see something horrific. However, if somebody shows a boob (a body part that everyone has, actually), that is all of a sudden considered terrible current standards of TV morality.

Thoughts on this topic?

[Hero]

Who considers sex worse and violence okay?

[Candy Kappa]

I think it's mostly an American thing.

[CyberCubed]

Because even when I was a kid I thought seeing people shoot each other or rip their heads off was more acceptable than seeing boobs.

At the age of 10 you don't think seeing bare breasts is more appropriate than watching a movie where people shoot each other?

Take Star Wars or Captain america for example. Both movies have people shooting and killing each other and parents take their kids to see it. But if we had naked ladies running around 10 year olds wouldn't be taken to see it.

It's common facts. People are OK with violence and blood.

[Katie]

It's easy to explain to little Johnny that bad guys shooting up stuff is just pretend, and not so easy to explain what sex is or why the lady (or more rarely the man) is naked.

[CyberCubed]

Would you take a kid to see a movie with bare breasts jiggling out or good guys shooting bad guys with guns?

Obviously the latter because people you can say the heroes are shooting the bad guys.

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by Katie

It's easy to explain to little Johnny that bad guys shooting up stuff is just pretend, and not so easy to explain what sex is or why the lady (or more rarely the man) is naked.

Agreed. I think the main thing is that parents want to decide when their kids are ready learn about sex, and how they will be taught. So they would rather it not be everywhere.

And I don't see so much of a double standard. Mainstream entertainment probably has as much sex as it does violence. Kids can see people talking about sex, or rolling around in the sheets on Nick @ Nite. But there's a big difference between how graphic and bloody rated R violence is, compared to what's in Captain America. Cap ain't got nothin' on Commando. Same for sex.

EDIT________
I said Commando, but I was thinking Predator.

[snake]

Originally Posted by Katie

It's easy to explain to little Johnny that bad guys shooting up stuff is just pretend, and not so easy to explain what sex is or why the lady (or more rarely the man) is naked.

/Thread



''

[Wildcat]

I was watching a rated R movie on regular TV awhile back, forgot what it was about but I had seen part before unedited and besides the cussing, which I understand, the only thing cut out was when a woman was shown in skimpy lingerie. Not even a sex scene or nudity.

Yet they showed all the violence. Not good vs bad. It was gory and detailed. There was was an innocent guy getting his head ripped off.

Its just a double standard that will probably change eventually. Look whats allowed on TV now compared to the 50s and even 80s. We've come a long way.

It does annoy me though cause it really doesn't make sense. Everything has a rating now anyway. Even so its all overreaction...Im sure we all, as kids, saw movies with nudity or sexual content and yes alot of violence. It did not corrupt us.

[electric_sheep]

Because science?

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Ninja

I thought about this for a moment, as the question seems obvious at first. Actually, I wouldn't want younger viewers watching either of those types of films. Both are equally bad.

Depends on the level of violence. Stuff in action movies like DC and Marvel films show characters shooting with guns all the time, but its not violent enough to make a different.

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I was watching a rated R movie on regular TV awhile back, forgot what it was about but I had seen part before unedited and besides the cussing, which I understand, the only thing cut out was when a woman was shown in skimpy lingerie. Not even a sex scene or nudity.

Yet they showed all the violence. Not good vs bad. It was gory and detailed. There was was an innocent guy getting his head ripped off.

Its just a double standard that will probably change eventually. Look whats allowed on TV now compared to the 50s and even 80s. We've come a long way.

It does annoy me though cause it really doesn't make sense. Everything has a rating now anyway. Even so its all overreaction...Im sure we all, as kids, saw movies with nudity or sexual content and yes alot of violence. It did not corrupt us.

This seems like an odd occurrence. A head being ripped off, I mean. But it may be a matter of what the station is willing to show, and not what they're allowed to show. I think, most of the time, networks are allowed to show more than they are willing to show, and they just don't want to be labelled as that kind of network. Like Comedy Central running uncensored stand-up after 1am. It's probably their own rule.

But I don't really know. Seems like, if HBO, Showtime, and Netflix are winning all the Emmy's with MA rated shows, some basic cable network would put nudity and profanity in a primetime show, as well. But they don't. Maybe they really aren't allowed...

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

This seems like an odd occurrence. A head being ripped off, I mean. But it may be a matter of what the station is willing to show, and not what they're allowed to show. I think, most of the time, networks are allowed to show more than they are willing to show, and they just don't want to be labelled as that kind of network. Like Comedy Central running uncensored stand-up after 1am. It's probably their own rule.

But I don't really know. Seems like, if HBO, Showtime, and Netflix are winning all the Emmy's with MA rated shows, some basic cable network would put nudity and profanity in a primetime show, as well. But they don't. Maybe they really aren't allowed...

It was a horror movie from a few years ago on one of those horror-specific channels. Still to edit out a women in skimpy lingerie is just ridiculous. Girls in revealing outfits is something you see pretty often on other channels.

[pennydreadful]

If I didn't have a headache this morning, I'd write a really interesting piece about how female sexuality in particular is extremely censored... instead, I'm just going to point at "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" as the go-to on how screwed up the censorship boards actually are.

As far as Little Johnny's parents go, I don't feel that human sexuality is something to be ashamed of. Unfortunately, its portrayal in movies is often problematic. I'm overusing the word 'problematic' today but basically, sex in tv shows often bears little resemblance to sex in real life, in that it's commercialised, used to titillate and scintillate and get butts in seats and ratings points, rather than display normal human emotions and relationships.

Then the "what about teh childrenz?!" argument gets trotted out anytime progressive sexual content - let alone non-heteronormative TV or movie characters is broached. I feel that a lot of this pearl-clutching is less to do with what's healthy for children educationally, mentally and emotionally, and more to do with the fact that a lot of people are just lazy when it comes to parenting, and they want the rest of the world to do the work for them so that they don't have to actually have a conversation with their child about anything meaningful.

The idea that having gay, bi, trans or generally queer characters on tv is automatically going to lead to a conversation about buttsecks is a strawman argument. By that logic, having Homer and Marge Simpson on tv would automatically lead to a conversation about the birds and the bees.

Personally, it doesn't make sense to me why people are so uptight about sex and nudity (which are perfectly normal and healthy when they aren't being twisted and turned into a vehicle to sell things), yet have zero problems with the violence that we see on the news every day.

Sigh. Ok, rant over. Apologies in advance if I've offended anybody.

[psychturtle]

Originally Posted by Katie

It's easy to explain to little Johnny that bad guys shooting up stuff is just pretend, and not so easy to explain what sex is or why the lady (or more rarely the man) is naked.

But I think you perfectly make the point. WHY is it harder for you to explain sex but violence is easy? One act promotes life, the other acts to harm/prevent life.

I definitely believe its an American thing. I do see American culture is orienting more towards European culture and allowing more sex scenes of TV and have decreased rigidity in policing that.

[chrisdude]

I think we've crossed over from "Why isn't this okay on TV?" to questioning why people raise their kids the way they do.

Yeah, I think that, ultimately, it's a parent's responsibility to monitor what their kid is exposed to. And this censorship is really only for things very easily accessible by children. So, I think it's appropriate, for the most part. You can buy whatever you want in the store, watch whatever you want on premium channels, see whatever you want on the internet. We're talking about what your average child with a remote set can turn on. If most people didn't agree that this censorship was appropriate, the networks would change, and make more money. This is akin to asking why lyrics are censored on the radio. We know why.

I've walked around Paris and seen the magazine stands with nude women on the covers, and I think that's a bit much... I'm like, "Dude, we're a block up from the Notre-Dame Cathedral. C'mon."

However, channel-surfing and stumbling onto a live birth was far more traumatizing than any sex or violence I've seen on television.

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Ninja

Sex between consenting couples is legal and leads to new life. So when I really think about it, violence is way worse than sex.

I don't think sex has any place on TV or in the movies. I also don't think violence has any place on TV or in the movies.

Not having a go at you here, I'm just wondering - why don't you think sex has any place on tv or in the movies? I mean, sex isn't just for procreation... behind closed doors... under a blanket... with the lights out. (I am just teasing with that last part, btw).

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Ninja

I don't think sex has any place on TV or in the movies. I also don't think violence has any place on TV or in the movies. I am not proposing censorship, but I just don't understand how violence can be viewed as more acceptable on TV or in a movie.

If I was making film, violence would be very mild and tame. It would be about like Power Rangers or a 1960s James Bond film (I haven't seen all of them, but Dr. No and Goldfinger seemed like okay movies to me).

As for sex, kissing and maybe showing a couple sitting together in bed would be okay. So basically it would be tame and on a PG level.

Sorry but this is just being a goody-two-shoes. I mean really? Movies and TV should never have adult content higher than PG and Power Rangers level violence? Why, because everything should be family-friendly and nice?

Im usually not rude on forums but this is just over sensitive, over offended, nonsense. Ive known people like this too.

and no Im not just into violence. I like everything from cartoons, comedies, action and horror movies. R-rated ones too, but I guess thats wrong? How could I pollute my mind with such atrocious things.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Ninja

This post is simply my opinion on TV and movie content, and was written a little before 2:00 AM, therefore, it may seem unusual:

I put the part of your post in bold that I am responding to. This is my point exactly, I basically agree. Violence is horrible and against the law. Sex between consenting couples is legal and leads to new life. So when I really think about it, violence is way worse than sex.

I don't think sex has any place on TV or in the movies. I also don't think violence has any place on TV or in the movies. I am not proposing censorship, but I just don't understand how violence can be viewed as more acceptable on TV or in a movie.

If I was making film, violence would be very mild and tame. It would be about like Power Rangers or a 1960s James Bond film (I haven't seen all of them, but Dr. No and Goldfinger seemed like okay movies to me).

As for sex, kissing and maybe showing a couple sitting together in bed would be okay. So basically it would be tame and on a PG level.

All I'm saying is a boob is less offensive than someone being hit with a samurai sword.

Now, let's talk about toys that are produced. Males are given toys with guns, swords, and other weapons; whereas girls are given normal and real-life toys such as a fashion doll with the intent of playing shopping, eating, everyday life scenarios.

No. I'm not encourageing or condoning voilence, but when you restrict volence, it sort of, IMO, restricts people being creative.

See, when you restrict all violence to PG level, you are forcing people to not step out of those boundries, which restricts the possible potential that the show/movie has.