Why is VIOLENCE acceptable and SEX is not?

[DaShen]

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.

QFT. Why do people keep bringing this stuff up over and over again? It is moronic. Violence should not be tolerated either unless it serves a purpose. For instance sex or violence if not gratuitously done in a movie can further elaborate on the meaning of the story, but when it is put in there just to sell tickets, I think it is dumb, but that is just my opinion.

It is your choice to look at nudity and violence (which IMO again, only debases people's view of each other and portrays women as something to be used and owned), but don't make it such a big deal either way. It is when it is shown in public where people who wish to not see it have almost no other choice, or when it hurts another sentient living being that it is, or it becomes, a problem. On the same hand, totally eliminating the choice like some fundies (a small population that is just very forthcoming in public about their ideas) want is also a problem because it eliminates the freedom of choice to the individual. As long as the liberty to choose to look at it or not look at is preserved and it does not infringe on another person's inherent rights, no problems. But public displays do infringe on people choice to not view it or not let their children view it.

I have no problems with nude beaches for instance because the people that go there know what they are getting themselves in to. They choose to go there knowing the situation. But a person going to a public beach and just stripping in front of everyone and saying that it is his freedom of choice to do what he wants is just moronic, immature, and ultimately flawed because it infringes on other people's rights to not look at such a thing.

**EDIT**
Much the same way I wouldn't go out and just start fighting someone in the middle of the street. Even if the other person gave his/her consent to fight, it just isn't a proper place to do that. Put it in a ring where people who go know what they are about to watch. I would not want my kids in the future, to witness random acts of violence on the street in much the same way I wouldn't want them seeing a couple copulate in the middle of the street.

 

[sswingle]

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

So a human actor is not real if its a violent fight scene, but if the same actor is on a sex scene he is suddenly real?

 

[skace]

Sex is more destructive than violence. Mass approval of sex could lead to hedonistic lifestyles where STDs actually become far more dangerous as they spread like wildfire. This would also devalue, more so than ever, things such as marriage and the entire structure of a family unit.

Violence on the other hand is interesting. While mass approval could create serial killers and whatnot, the worst they will ever do is kill a few people and, from a government perspective, we have plenty of people. But then again, it also creates cannon fodder for the military and desensitizes people so that in wartimes they aren't as affected by shock news.

Now why would you rather have serial killers than STDs? It's easier to stop something that doesn't multiply.

PS. I'm just messing around.

Edit: Ooh, I like countzero's take too.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Because it most cases, it's "good guys" killing "bad guys." Even in most games.
It's deemed acceptable because of that.
But with sex, it lacks a warning.
In death you know someone dies.
In sex, you have no idea of what awaits you. It could be harmless fun. Or it could be an STD or having a child at 14 years old.
But when you see it in movies or on TV, it's portrayed as a wonderful and pleasing experience.
But you never see Tom Cruise slip on a condom before screwing the leading lady in his newest film.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: alien42
and why is a male nipple ok to be exposed but not a womans?

I always wonder that myself? Should a guy that have breast that are bigger than women a breast have to wear bikini top when they goto the beach?

 

[marulee]

Embarrasment... but the violence is very common on our life...

 

[thomsbrain]

the same reason as everything else that's bad: because of republicans.

 

[DefDC]

The Puritanical nature of this country has warped our values. Look at the Netherlands, frontal nudity and drug decriminalization has TAKEN AWAY THE TABOOS and mind-warping "naughtiness" factor. If you keep telling kids that their privates are naughty and cause "evil thoughts", they're going to think just that, and think that there is something wrong with them and have deep seated emotional problems regarding sex and sexuality.

I've never understood it myself. I'd rather my kids watch porn, than the power rangers. Preferably, they'd read a book. I've never had a kid sexually harass me, but I've had plenty punch me in the nuts after watching insanely violent programming targeted at small children.

All kids have these body parts, and sexuality can be easily explained to them. Young children ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SEX. They WON'T be harmed by it. If a small child witnesses porn by accident, they'd say "GROSS!" and wouldn't give it a second thought. Case closed. Naughty bits are only naughty because we say they are. NO-ONE was harmed by Janet Jackson, other than the overprotective zealot parents that probably scared the kids half to death.

Quoted from 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."

We couldn't have more different opinions about the subject. Nothing wrong with sexual craving. The only thing that would cause a person be tormented by visual stimulation is if they were raised believing that having sexual thoughts were were bad and "evil". It's insanity. It's not a weakness. It's nature. And yes, you CAN control it. But appreciating a beautiful human form is not a weakness. It's human.

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Amused
I think violent sex is the answer! Or was that sexy violence?

hell yeah!

 

[Xyo II]

Originally posted by: Amused
I think violent sex is the answer! Or was that sexy violence?

:laugh:

Yes! Violent sex!

 

[fishmonger12]

Originally posted by: DefDC
I'd rather my kids watch porn, than the power rangers.

Gives a new meaning to kiddie porn.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: sonoma1993

Originally posted by: alien42
and why is a male nipple ok to be exposed but not a womans?

I always wonder that myself? Should a guy that have breast that are bigger than women a breast have to wear bikini top when they goto the beach?

Because women don't look at mens' nipples the way men do a woman's.

That's proven on this forum every day - just read the Scarlett Johannsen thread.

 

[AcidicFury]

I think that one of the things people are forgetting here is the type of sex education we receive in the US.

Much of the country still teaches abstinence only sex education, which regardless of whether this is good or bad, fundamentally alters the morality of sex. If we teach that all sex is bad until you're married, but yet we see two nubile young actors fornicating on screen, its completely contradictory.

As a result, numerous initiatives have been put in place to make sure this contradiction doesn't exist. I think that if we were to teach kids properly and responsibly how to engage in sex rather than just denouncing it as an evil, immoral act (unless you're married of course) sex would be much more pervasive in the media.

Parents really just need to grow up and teach their kids the responsible thing to do. If they don't, the country will turn out like the South, which has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in the entire nation. Guess what they teach? Abstinence only sex education. Kids will experiment. Make sure they have all the facts before they do so.

With violence, we try to teach kids right and wrong most of the time, but we also are an extremely war-obsessed society, which propogates weaponry, etc. I haven't really thought about the societal ramifications of violence yet as opposed to sex, so I'll have to reply later in the thread or something.

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
I think that one of the things people are forgetting here is the type of sex education we receive in the US.

Much of the country still teaches abstinence only sex education, which regardless of whether this is good or bad, fundamentally alters the morality of sex. If we teach that all sex is bad until you're married, but yet we see two nubile young actors fornicating on screen, its completely contradictory.

As a result, numerous initiatives have been put in place to make sure this contradiction doesn't exist. I think that if we were to teach kids properly and responsibly how to engage in sex rather than just denouncing it as an evil, immoral act (unless you're married of course) sex would be much more pervasive in the media.

Parents really just need to grow up and teach their kids the responsible thing to do. If they don't, the country will turn out like the South, which has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in the entire nation. Guess what they teach? Abstinence only sex education. Kids will experiment. Make sure they have all the facts before they do so.

With violence, we try to teach kids right and wrong most of the time, but we also are an extremely war-obsessed society, which propogates weaponry, etc. I haven't really thought about the societal ramifications of violence yet as opposed to sex, so I'll have to reply later in the thread or something.

nicely done. thanks...

 

[ksaajasto]

In France it is the opposite. they don't care about sex, but violence really upsets them.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Religious fundamentalists.

Yep. What a bunch of hippocrites. Bible has some very fvcked-up sex-related stories.

My guess is that since the Bible in some places endorses violence (eye for an eye, etc.) and contains violent acts (an execution, for instance) that religious freaks don't look askance at violence. However, sex, while it might be in the Bible (I'm not that familiar with the things mentioned by the poster above) is explicity denounced, and nudity is considered sinful or something worthy of shame in Genesis.

To me, it's asinine. The human body is beautiful (I prefer women by a longshot!), and I fail to understand the illogic which forces us to cover it up yet allows us to watch it being destroyed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Vic
Because violence is punishable and sex is not.

 

[fustercluck]

Yeah it is crazy how America's 'standards' are way messed up.

Here's a good example. I'm sure a lot of you remember the GTA San Andreas Hot Coffee story. Lots of 'VIP' people went into an outrage (Hillary Clinton being the most known one), and it made the news everywhere, on every news channel. They were so angry that the Hot Coffee part of the game was made, even though it wasn't included in the game. The game was rated M, but they demanded an 'Adult' rating, even though like I said, this Hot Coffee thing wasn't included in the game, and was something you would have to additionally download. They said it was "Unacceptable"

That's ok. I see their point, and they have a right to bring this to people's attention. Now, Hot Coffee was released a long time after GTA SA came out, and a long long time after the first GTA came out. I never saw anyone on the news mention that in GTA SA, you can beat policemen to death with a giant Sex toy. Apparently that wasn't "Unacceptable", and that didn't make headlines anywhere. This goes back to all of the GTA games as well, where you can shoot and beat people (men and women) and police officers to death. Of course the GTA series has been heavily criticized for it's violence, but I was surprised to see the Hot Coffee thing being a much larger news story. I think they put way too much focus on Sex thing (again, which wasn't even in the game) and somewhat ignored all of the violence in the game, which I think should of been a much larger issue.

Anyhow, that's an example. I love the GTA series myself, and the violence doesn't bother me

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Religious fundamentalists.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Religious fundamentalists.

Yep. What a bunch of hippocrites. Bible has some very fvcked-up sex-related stories.

My guess is that since the Bible in some places endorses violence (eye for an eye, etc.) and contains violent acts (an execution, for instance) that religious freaks don't look askance at violence. However, sex, while it might be in the Bible (I'm not that familiar with the things mentioned by the poster above) is explicity denounced, and nudity is considered sinful or something worthy of shame in Genesis.

To me, it's asinine. The human body is beautiful (I prefer women by a longshot!), and I fail to understand the illogic which forces us to cover it up yet allows us to watch it being destroyed.

I suppose you choose to ignore the entire New Testament, and that you are an expert scholar in Biblical interpretation. That said, I claim to be no expert; however, this I do know:

The Bible does not endorse violence - it shows the contrast between the old covenant (wrath and justice) and the new covenant (grace and mercy). Sure there are depictions of terrible things in the Bible... but to fail to see that violence is actually NOT acceptable is being ignorant of the overall message.

Sex is not frowned upon at all in the Bible! It's extra-marital sex that is forbidden. Sex between married couples is perfectly legitimate and considered a beautiful thing. Also, if you read the first several chapters of Genesis, you will find that Adam and Eve were not aware of their own nakedness until they had "fallen". It is only because we as a fallen people look at someone naked with lustful desires that it is considered shameful.

Again, there is a difference between simply reading the text and understanding it. Taking a verse or passage out of context can lead to a wrong interpretation of it's meaning.

 

[hans030390]

I think generally on TV we see violence because it's usually not real (for real violence it's usually toned down).

With nudity, it's real. And usually it's not just minor nudity.

I'm too lazy to explain it...I just think people want to keep their privacy with the nudity thing, because it's pretty hard to fake. Violence, on the other hand, is generally seen as fake.

 

[Dumac]

It stems from America's puritanical customs, and we have many.

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: hans030390
I think generally on TV we see violence because it's usually not real (for real violence it's usually toned down).

With nudity, it's real. And usually it's not just minor nudity.

I'm too lazy to explain it...I just think people want to keep their privacy with the nudity thing, because it's pretty hard to fake. Violence, on the other hand, is generally seen as fake.

but fake or not, it is what it advocates.

jC

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Americans have always had a f*cked up sense of morality in some areas. Sex is one of them.

FIXED

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: 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.

That whole argument is very, very debatable, and rather simplistic in its analysis of male 'cravings' and control.

Sexual imagery is a lot more powerful than violent imagery? Ever watch Scarface, Robocop, Casino, Good Fellas, etc? In the average lifetime a TV viewer sees far more death than sex - even including their own experiences! Plus how can you suggest watching violence doesn't make some people crave it or cause some to imitate what they see? I'd also argue that between the quantity and its rather cartoonish depiction it likely desensitizes others.

Sixone is arguing that children understand pain, as if that's all that is required to nullify the effects of the violence shown on TV. Just because someone can relate to their own pain doesn't mean they have the mental capacity to appreciate others'. That goes for adults as well as children.

There obviously is a double standard. I think it's pathetic that there is endless violence programs and movies on TV, yet the government doesn't want pictures of flag-draped coffins be shown on the news. Talk about a country in denial.