Why is VIOLENCE acceptable and SEX is not?

[Electric Amish]

America was founded by Puritans.

They have no problem torturing "witches", but women can't show naked ankles.....

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: sixone
OP, you have the entire fracking internet at your fingertips. If you're not seeing enough nudity, that's your problem. It's out there, and it's not hard to find.

If you feel the need to put it where those who prefer not to see it can't possibly avoid it, that's also your problem. Get over yourself.

Clearly you did not take your smart pills this morning....missed the whole intent...

stave yourself from making assumptions til you take your pills....

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: slayer202
well this might be traumatic to you, but movies, tv, and video games aren't real. human bodies, however, are real bodies, even in the movies

That made absolutely no sense! Aside from the animated violence, TV shows, documentaries, scientific programs often portray acts of violence and engrossing details of mutilation using "real" bodies. As real as it gets my friend.

The problem is with the fundies and the fake/double standard of morality that this society seems to love. I can guarantee you that a society that's more acceptable to sex is a less violent society. I mean, not to be stereotypical, but look at the French, Canada, Swiss, and then pick any middle eastern counterpart and you'll see what I'm talking about. Less frustration.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: broon
I see your point but isn't it the same with violence? If I want violence I can find it on the net or watch UFC. But it's not a big deal to have shootings shown on TV.

Sex and violence are not equivalent. Which is why they're treated differently in the mainstream.

I agree. I think violence is worse than sex.

Of course it is. But most of the violence shown on network television is fake, except for real life tragedies shown on news shows, where society at large is concerned about the outcome.

Faking intimate acts is not the same as faking violent ones, and shouldn't be treated as tho they are eequivalent.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Originally posted by: sixone
OP, you have the entire fracking internet at your fingertips. If you're not seeing enough nudity, that's your problem. It's out there, and it's not hard to find.

If you feel the need to put it where those who prefer not to see it can't possibly avoid it, that's also your problem. Get over yourself.

Clearly you did not take your smart pills this morning....missed the whole intent...

stave yourself from making assumptions til you take your pills....

Oh, the irony...

 

[Electric Amish]

Faking intimate acts is not the same as faking violent ones, and shouldn't be treated as tho they are eequivalent.

How so???

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: broon
I see your point but isn't it the same with violence? If I want violence I can find it on the net or watch UFC. But it's not a big deal to have shootings shown on TV.

Sex and violence are not equivalent. Which is why they're treated differently in the mainstream.

I agree. I think violence is worse than sex.

Of course it is. But most of the violence shown on network television is fake, except for real life tragedies shown on news shows, where society at large is concerned about the outcome.

Faking intimate acts is not the same as faking violent ones, and shouldn't be treated as tho they are eequivalent.

Tell that to a child with little conceptual reasoning of "fake" or "real", and have him be affected by it. I'm sure a child growing up is not accustom to the naked female form at all, or being naked for that matter. :roll: Excuses after excuses, even in the bible, the first female wasn't donning much in term of clothing (to which I'm not a fan of by the way).

If my child, in the course of growing up and have to be exposed to either violence or sex (be it fake or not - they'll figure out the "fake" in sex on their own ), I rather him or her knowing the sex part really well.

 

[purbeast0]

LoL ... yesterday while wathing nip tuck they showed a girl getting a boob job. They showed her boobs but her nipples had a tiny piece of tape over them.

i find it funny how in our society we can show everything but the nipple and it's considered "okay" but if we show a nippled, OMG SEXUAL THOUGHTS!!1!!1!

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Tell that to a child with little conceptual reasoning of "fake" or "real", and have him be affected by it. I'm sure a child growing up is not accustom to the naked female form at all, or being naked for that matter. :roll: Excuses after excuses, even in the bible, the first female wasn't donning much in term of clothing (to which I'm not a fan of by the way).

If my child, in the course of growing up and have to be exposed to either violence or sex (be it fake or not - they'll figure out the "fake" in sex on their own ), I rather him or her knowing the sex part really well.

Then explain how seeing nipples will make your child understand sex, and its consequences.

 

[foghorn67]

Telling a well behaved kid that voilence is bad is easy. They don't want to get hurt, and they if they are remotely sensitive, they don't want to hurt others as well.
Telling a well behaved kid that sex at an early age is a challenge. It works against their hormones.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: sixone
Of course it is. But most of the violence shown on network television is fake, except for real life tragedies shown on news shows, where society at large is concerned about the outcome.

Faking intimate acts is not the same as faking violent ones, and shouldn't be treated as tho they are eequivalent.

Mostly you are correct. There are shows based on violence though. Boxing, UFC, and Rrrrastlin' (even though it's fake). Wrestling is the worst since it's a "family" type show. I'm not a fan of gratuitous sex, violence, or language even if it's just me watching the show. But the example of covering the nipple with tape during a surgery is ridiculous.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
Telling a well behaved kid that voilence is bad is easy. They don't want to get hurt, and they if they are remotely sensitive, they don't want to hurt others as well.
Telling a well behaved kid that sex at an early age is a challenge. It works against their hormones.

But we have done a great job in society at preventing early age sex.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: sixone
Of course it is. But most of the violence shown on network television is fake, except for real life tragedies shown on news shows, where society at large is concerned about the outcome.

Faking intimate acts is not the same as faking violent ones, and shouldn't be treated as tho they are eequivalent.

Mostly you are correct. There are shows based on violence though. Boxing, UFC, and Rrrrastlin' (even though it's fake). Wrestling is the worst since it's a "family" type show. I'm not a fan of gratuitous sex, violence, or language even if it's just me watching the show. But the example of covering the nipple with tape during a surgery is ridiculous.

Yeah, it is. But kids understand violence and pain pretty well, no matter how young they are. Sex is much more complicated, and it should be parents deciding what kids see, not the mainstream media.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: foghorn67
Telling a well behaved kid that voilence is bad is easy. They don't want to get hurt, and they if they are remotely sensitive, they don't want to hurt others as well.
Telling a well behaved kid that sex at an early age is a challenge. It works against their hormones.

But we have done a great job in society at preventing early age sex.

Depends on how you define "early age." Since the risk-assessing area of your brain is not fully mature until age 25 or so, sex prior to that maturity level is much more dangerous than later in a person's life.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Tell that to a child with little conceptual reasoning of "fake" or "real", and have him be affected by it. I'm sure a child growing up is not accustom to the naked female form at all, or being naked for that matter. :roll: Excuses after excuses, even in the bible, the first female wasn't donning much in term of clothing (to which I'm not a fan of by the way).

If my child, in the course of growing up and have to be exposed to either violence or sex (be it fake or not - they'll figure out the "fake" in sex on their own ), I rather him or her knowing the sex part really well.

Then explain how seeing nipples will make your child understand sex, and its consequences.

They wouldn't, but they won't want to go running through their school sucking on every nipples they could potentially see. Damn it, bad idea , they're already doing that.

I'm not entirely sure if you understand the concept of desensitizing, but the reason why we have 12 years old shooting up schools is largely contributed to the violence that's fed to them daily, that and bad parenting.

Were you breast fed or bottle?

Guess what body part you came out of?

 

[FeuerFrei]

Sexual imagery is a lot more powerful than violent imagery. Hence the double standard I guess. Watching sex makes you crave it, watching violence makes you queasy. Nothing wrong with wanting sex but chances are you're fantasizing about banging the chick in the movie and not your wife. Guys have hard enough time controlling themselves as it is without the constant visual stimulation. Pandering to your sexual craving does not make for a healthy society. It's a weakness, not a strength.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: sixone
Yeah, it is. But kids understand violence and pain pretty well, no matter how young they are. Sex is much more complicated, and it should be parents deciding what kids see, not the mainstream media.

But kids don't understand that when you smack your buddy with a folding chair, he's really not going to get up. I agree that parents should decide what kids see. My son doesn't watch WWE or whatever it's called nowdays. He also doesn't watch shows like Southpark or any show after 9 PM. But It wouldn't bother me if he saw a woman's bare breast at a beach in Europe. I would rather him see that than watch WWE. Of course I'd rather see that than watch WWE too but that's not the point.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Tell that to a child with little conceptual reasoning of "fake" or "real", and have him be affected by it. I'm sure a child growing up is not accustom to the naked female form at all, or being naked for that matter. :roll: Excuses after excuses, even in the bible, the first female wasn't donning much in term of clothing (to which I'm not a fan of by the way).

If my child, in the course of growing up and have to be exposed to either violence or sex (be it fake or not - they'll figure out the "fake" in sex on their own ), I rather him or her knowing the sex part really well.

Then explain how seeing nipples will make your child understand sex, and its consequences.

They wouldn't, but they won't want to go running through their school sucking on every nipples they could potentially see. Damn it, bad idea , they're already doing that.

I'm not entirely sure if you understand the concept of desensitizing, but the reason why we have 12 years old shooting up schools is largely contributed to the violence that's fed to them daily, that and bad parenting.

Were you breast fed or bottle?

Guess what body part you came out of?

I am not in any way defending the violence that some kids with sh!tty parents are exposed to. I'm only saying that just because violence permeates our 'entertainment' is no reason that sex should, too.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Tell that to a child with little conceptual reasoning of "fake" or "real", and have him be affected by it. I'm sure a child growing up is not accustom to the naked female form at all, or being naked for that matter. :roll: Excuses after excuses, even in the bible, the first female wasn't donning much in term of clothing (to which I'm not a fan of by the way).

If my child, in the course of growing up and have to be exposed to either violence or sex (be it fake or not - they'll figure out the "fake" in sex on their own ), I rather him or her knowing the sex part really well.

Then explain how seeing nipples will make your child understand sex, and its consequences.

They wouldn't, but they won't want to go running through their school sucking on every nipples they could potentially see. Damn it, bad idea , they're already doing that.

I'm not entirely sure if you understand the concept of desensitizing, but the reason why we have 12 years old shooting up schools is largely contributed to the violence that's fed to them daily, that and bad parenting.

Were you breast fed or bottle?

Guess what body part you came out of?

I am not in any way defending the violence that some kids with sh!tty parents are exposed to. I'm only saying that just because violence permeates our 'entertainment' is no reason that sex should, too.

But, you're all for "permeating our entertainment" with violence while denoucing sex? I see where this is going and where you're coming from.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: sixone
I am not in any way defending the violence that some kids with sh!tty parents are exposed to. I'm only saying that just because violence permeates our 'entertainment' is no reason that sex should, too.

But, you're all for "permeating our entertainment" with violence while denoucing sex? I see where this is going and where you're coming from.

Where did I ever post such nonsense?

 

[Vic]

Because violence is punishable and sex is not.

 

[bennylong]

It's ok to show a guy with his arm cut off in the news but show breastsssss on TV and look out! Good ole American morality

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: sixone
Yeah, it is. But kids understand violence and pain pretty well, no matter how young they are. Sex is much more complicated, and it should be parents deciding what kids see, not the mainstream media.

But kids don't understand that when you smack your buddy with a folding chair, he's really not going to get up. I agree that parents should decide what kids see. My son doesn't watch WWE or whatever it's called nowdays. He also doesn't watch shows like Southpark or any show after 9 PM. But It wouldn't bother me if he saw a woman's bare breast at a beach in Europe. I would rather him see that than watch WWE. Of course I'd rather see that than watch WWE too but that's not the point.

So kids can identify with the hitter, but not with the person being hit? If that's the case, it's your job as a parent to be sure he can do both.

Nudity in the mainstream will not be widely accepted in the near future anyway. Remember the JCPenney's commercial, where mom pulls her daughter's low-riders down a little lower? The general public won't support advertisers who support that kind of content, and without those advertising dollars, those programs don't exist.

 

[CountZero]

Religous groups and morality groups is the reason.

The argument of having sex force fed being wrong is a poor argument for why its differentiated from violence since violence is found all over TV but of course you can turn it off, monitor what your children watch and avoid that.

The reason is that violence is both immoral and illegal. The morality police do not have to go out of their way to punish those that participate in violent behavior. They have no reason to push against this. Sex is, to them, immoral but not illegal therefore the law is not on their side of the morality bandwagon. In addition sex will rarely be portrayed as bad, further weakening the immoral nature of sex from their perspective.

Lastly it isn't as if when talking about having sex on TV anyone is talking about hardcore pornography at 9am while little johnny is finding cartoons. It could be handled similar to how violence on TV is currently handled. But it isn't, instead if an overtly sexual commercial plays while folks are watching SVU about the little girl being raped and strangled its an outrage.

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: CountZero
Religous groups and morality groups is the reason.

The argument of having sex force fed being wrong is a poor argument for why its differentiated from violence since violence is found all over TV but of course you can turn it off, monitor what your children watch and avoid that.

The reason is that violence is both immoral and illegal. The morality police do not have to go out of their way to punish those that participate in violent behavior. They have no reason to push against this. Sex is, to them, immoral but not illegal therefore the law is not on their side of the morality bandwagon. In addition sex will rarely be portrayed as bad, further weakening the immoral nature of sex from their perspective.

Lastly it isn't as if when talking about having sex on TV anyone is talking about hardcore pornography at 9am while little johnny is finding cartoons. It could be handled similar to how violence on TV is currently handled. But it isn't, instead if an overtly sexual commercial plays while folks are watching SVU about the little girl being raped and strangled its an outrage.

Interesting take.