• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is violence more acceptable than sex in our society (US)?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
a few years ago ABC showed Shindlers List uncut that showed full frontal nudity of women and men, and the morons came out of the wooodwork crying outrage and screaming "what about the children" crap. but then ABC showed Saving Private Ryan uncut with men getting blown up, limbs blown off, shot in the head, language and all the other things that make a great war movie and hardly anybody complained...

My kids saw the Jackson boob flash and all the stupid hype that followed and my 11 year old daughter just didnt understand what the uproar was all about. she said. whats the big deal it was just a boob.


My wife and I would rather our kids see nudity and sex like in shows like Rescue Me than have them watch violence. one is natural the other is un-natural and barbaric.

 
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Siva
That or its the Bible. The Bible says things like "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "turn the other cheek" during the Jesus era, but at the same time wars rage and plenty of the "heros" also end up either killing or dying violently. It very rarely portrays violence as truly sinful. Jesus was a peaceful man and provided what I think should be the true outlook for a Christian (yet has been forgotten or corrupted by popular ignorance over the years) but he never took a stance against violence, he just never participated in it. However sex gets a whole lot of negative stigma in the Bible. Especially Deuteronomy, where the basic outlines of "good behavior" are laid down.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the story in which he stopped a crowd from stoning a woman to death. Nor the extreme violence of his own death.
Click to expand...

Good point, still the gospels aren't the kidns of texts that ministers and preists like to pull their burn in hell material from. That's the stuff that your average Christian ends up thinking is immoral. Jesus wasn't the biggest moralist in most cases, unfortunately most Christians don't pick that up from him.
Click to expand...

Wow, very insightful. Also the way it was presented was very logical. :thumbsup:

and a cookie for you. :cookie:
 
Violence is only more acceptable than sex in the context of the media. In real life it's the other way around. Violence here is supressed to the point where teachers are terrified of disciplining their students - in any physical way - for fear of criminal charges, etc. In movies, the hero can get away with slugging the guy who insults his wife, or disrespects him, or steals his wallet. In real life you may face assault charges and a civil lawsuit if you try that. Spank your unruly child in a public place and you risk having him/her taken away by the state.

I think part of the reason our media is so violent is because we have so few legal ways to express our anger anymore, especially in the workplace.

Sex, OTOH, is perfectly legal between consenting adults here. Americans have been screwing their brains out for the last 30 years and the only people who have a real problem with it is the extreme religious right. Granted, they're a noisy bunch and they know all the right people to complain to - but Americans are still by and large free to express a pretty wide range of sexuality on the street. Most of the hue and cry you hear about on the media is created by a small number of people who have a little too much power right now. But there's still plenty of sex in film, in print, and of course on the Net.
 
Because violence is friggin cool....and sex is...well...friggin cool.....so I guess I didn't really answer your question.
 
Originally posted by: phantom309
I think part of the reason our media is so violent is because we have so few legal ways to express our anger anymore, especially in the workplace.

Sex, OTOH, is perfectly legal between consenting adults here. Americans have been screwing their brains out for the last 30 years and the only people who have a real problem with it is the extreme religious right.
... But there's still plenty of sex in film, in print, and of course on the Net.
Click to expand...

I think you might have hit the nail on the head. This really is a part of that larger question, does media portray life or does life mimic media? I have never believed that media did either. I think that media is an outlet for pent up frustrations and dreams that we, as a society, have. What we watch and what we ban are all good indicators of the collective mental process of our nation.
Violence is good right now. I think this could be because we all have some unresolved issues with our sterile, manicured environment. We all know that there are wars going on, and some of us even know men who have fought in those wars, but we as a nation are mentally separated from it. Even the terribly violent events of 9/11 could not really instill a since of reality for long.
Sex is banned right now. This, I think, might be simply a jagged edge to our extremely fast change in moral makeup. We went in one person?s lifetime to a society that did not speak of sex outside of euphemisms and lyrics to a society that makes out on park benches and mass produces life like porn dolls. I think it is just natural that we have not yet completely decided where all this fits in. I think if you took a poll you would find that the opinions on sex were very linear with age. The older they are the more repressive they are. I think that in ten to twenty more years this issue will settle down and we will have decided just where sex sits in our lives. I personally think it will be in our everyday lives. I think we will decide that, for the most part, sex is not a taboo subject and is just another part of being human, and will be accepted and portrayed on TV and just about every other medium as a natural part of what we do, at which time for this subject media will have nothing to explore and will simply be potrtraying life, and something else will be the big controversy of the day.
Media struggles to portray life, but anywhere you see controversy I think what it is really portraying is our own struggles to understand ourselves.
 
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: phantom309
I think part of the reason our media is so violent is because we have so few legal ways to express our anger anymore, especially in the workplace.

Sex, OTOH, is perfectly legal between consenting adults here. Americans have been screwing their brains out for the last 30 years and the only people who have a real problem with it is the extreme religious right.
... But there's still plenty of sex in film, in print, and of course on the Net.
Click to expand...

I think you might have hit the nail on the head. This really is a part of that larger question, does media portray life or does life mimic media? I have never believed that media did either. I think that media is an outlet for pent up frustrations and dreams that we, as a society, have. What we watch and what we ban are all good indicators of the collective mental process of our nation.
Violence is good right now. I think this could be because we all have some unresolved issues with our sterile, manicured environment. We all know that there are wars going on, and some of us even know men who have fought in those wars, but we as a nation are mentally separated from it. Even the terribly violent events of 9/11 could not really instill a since of reality for long.
Sex is banned right now. This, I think, might be simply a jagged edge to our extremely fast change in moral makeup. We went in one person?s lifetime to a society that did not speak of sex outside of euphemisms and lyrics to a society that makes out on park benches and mass produces life like porn dolls. I think it is just natural that we have not yet completely decided where all this fits in. I think if you took a poll you would find that the opinions on sex were very linear with age. The older they are the more repressive they are. I think that in ten to twenty more years this issue will settle down and we will have decided just where sex sits in our lives. I personally think it will be in our everyday lives. I think we will decide that, for the most part, sex is not a taboo subject and is just another part of being human, and will be accepted and portrayed on TV and just about every other medium as a natural part of what we do.
Media struggles to portray life, but anywhere you see controversy I think what it is really portraying is our own struggles to understand ourselves.
Click to expand...

How old are you?

I generally think that the morals we have now have nothing to do with how the generations before the current 20somethings acted. In fact most people who are considered to hold onto older values now were probably smoking drugs and having sex all throughout the sixties and seventies.

There have been definite shifts in the moral views of this nation, that is true, but I think those shifts have happened throughout the history of the world and happen quite often. Every single decade is a time period characterized by a new sin. I think the 90s will be remembered as an era that steadily exposed our nation to more and more images of sexuality; while the early part of this decade will be rememberd for an almost instantaneous shift towards repression and so called "morality" in terms of sex.

The 90s signified a kind of sexual revolution since it started the current era of total media saturation in sexuality. What we are experiencing now in terms of sex is a backlash from religious groups due to a combination of increased strength from our more conservative government and a jump in religious activism after 9/11. Since our government and the religious right are on the same page it makes it easier for regulators to tighten up on restrictions to what the find immoral (sex), with wealthy and powerful religious organizations backing them. It also makes it more marketable to tone down sexually, most of the major films released are PG-13. Its nice to see a trend going in the other direction as more movies such as Wedding Crashers move into R territory and yet still maintain a widespread appeal. Still Wedding Crashers garned some contriversy.

Of course this is all speculation, you can't do anything except speculate when it comes to trends in society like this.
 
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: phantom309
I think part of the reason our media is so violent is because we have so few legal ways to express our anger anymore, especially in the workplace.

Sex, OTOH, is perfectly legal between consenting adults here. Americans have been screwing their brains out for the last 30 years and the only people who have a real problem with it is the extreme religious right.
... But there's still plenty of sex in film, in print, and of course on the Net.
Click to expand...

I think you might have hit the nail on the head. This really is a part of that larger question, does media portray life or does life mimic media? I have never believed that media did either. I think that media is an outlet for pent up frustrations and dreams that we, as a society, have. What we watch and what we ban are all good indicators of the collective mental process of our nation.
Violence is good right now. I think this could be because we all have some unresolved issues with our sterile, manicured environment. We all know that there are wars going on, and some of us even know men who have fought in those wars, but we as a nation are mentally separated from it. Even the terribly violent events of 9/11 could not really instill a since of reality for long.
Sex is banned right now. This, I think, might be simply a jagged edge to our extremely fast change in moral makeup. We went in one person?s lifetime to a society that did not speak of sex outside of euphemisms and lyrics to a society that makes out on park benches and mass produces life like porn dolls. I think it is just natural that we have not yet completely decided where all this fits in. I think if you took a poll you would find that the opinions on sex were very linear with age. The older they are the more repressive they are. I think that in ten to twenty more years this issue will settle down and we will have decided just where sex sits in our lives. I personally think it will be in our everyday lives. I think we will decide that, for the most part, sex is not a taboo subject and is just another part of being human, and will be accepted and portrayed on TV and just about every other medium as a natural part of what we do.
Media struggles to portray life, but anywhere you see controversy I think what it is really portraying is our own struggles to understand ourselves.
Click to expand...

How old are you?

I generally think that the morals we have now have nothing to do with how the generations before the current 20somethings acted. In fact most people who are considered to hold onto older values now were probably smoking drugs and having sex all throughout the sixties and seventies.

There have been definite shifts in the moral views of this nation, that is true, but I think those shifts have happened throughout the history of the world and happen quite often. Every single decade is a time period characterized by a new sin. I think the 90s will be remembered as an era that steadily exposed our nation to more and more images of sexuality; while the early part of this decade will be rememberd for an almost instantaneous shift towards repression and so called "morality" in terms of sex.

The 90s signified a kind of sexual revolution since it started the current era of total media saturation in sexuality. What we are experiencing now in terms of sex is a backlash from religious groups due to a combination of increased strength from our more conservative government and a jump in religious activism after 9/11. Since our government and the religious right are on the same page it makes it easier for regulators to tighten up on restrictions to what the find immoral (sex), with wealthy and powerful religious organizations backing them. It also makes it more marketable to tone down sexually, most of the major films released are PG-13. Its nice to see a trend going in the other direction as more movies such as Wedding Crashers move into R territory and yet still maintain a widespread appeal. Still Wedding Crashers garned some contriversy.

Of course this is all speculation, you can't do anything except speculate when it comes to trends in society like this.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the backlash is having that strong an effect outside of the media? I came of age in the Seventies, so I guess I don't really know - but from everything I've seen on these forums and SA, the amount of ordinary young people having sex really hasn't changed much. Attitudes towards abortion HAVE changed tho. But this doesn't seem to be reducing premarital sex; it's just producing more single mothers.
 
Originally posted by: phantom309
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: phantom309
I think part of the reason our media is so violent is because we have so few legal ways to express our anger anymore, especially in the workplace.

Sex, OTOH, is perfectly legal between consenting adults here. Americans have been screwing their brains out for the last 30 years and the only people who have a real problem with it is the extreme religious right.
... But there's still plenty of sex in film, in print, and of course on the Net.
Click to expand...

I think you might have hit the nail on the head. This really is a part of that larger question, does media portray life or does life mimic media? I have never believed that media did either. I think that media is an outlet for pent up frustrations and dreams that we, as a society, have. What we watch and what we ban are all good indicators of the collective mental process of our nation.
Violence is good right now. I think this could be because we all have some unresolved issues with our sterile, manicured environment. We all know that there are wars going on, and some of us even know men who have fought in those wars, but we as a nation are mentally separated from it. Even the terribly violent events of 9/11 could not really instill a since of reality for long.
Sex is banned right now. This, I think, might be simply a jagged edge to our extremely fast change in moral makeup. We went in one person?s lifetime to a society that did not speak of sex outside of euphemisms and lyrics to a society that makes out on park benches and mass produces life like porn dolls. I think it is just natural that we have not yet completely decided where all this fits in. I think if you took a poll you would find that the opinions on sex were very linear with age. The older they are the more repressive they are. I think that in ten to twenty more years this issue will settle down and we will have decided just where sex sits in our lives. I personally think it will be in our everyday lives. I think we will decide that, for the most part, sex is not a taboo subject and is just another part of being human, and will be accepted and portrayed on TV and just about every other medium as a natural part of what we do.
Media struggles to portray life, but anywhere you see controversy I think what it is really portraying is our own struggles to understand ourselves.
Click to expand...

How old are you?

I generally think that the morals we have now have nothing to do with how the generations before the current 20somethings acted. In fact most people who are considered to hold onto older values now were probably smoking drugs and having sex all throughout the sixties and seventies.

There have been definite shifts in the moral views of this nation, that is true, but I think those shifts have happened throughout the history of the world and happen quite often. Every single decade is a time period characterized by a new sin. I think the 90s will be remembered as an era that steadily exposed our nation to more and more images of sexuality; while the early part of this decade will be rememberd for an almost instantaneous shift towards repression and so called "morality" in terms of sex.

The 90s signified a kind of sexual revolution since it started the current era of total media saturation in sexuality. What we are experiencing now in terms of sex is a backlash from religious groups due to a combination of increased strength from our more conservative government and a jump in religious activism after 9/11. Since our government and the religious right are on the same page it makes it easier for regulators to tighten up on restrictions to what the find immoral (sex), with wealthy and powerful religious organizations backing them. It also makes it more marketable to tone down sexually, most of the major films released are PG-13. Its nice to see a trend going in the other direction as more movies such as Wedding Crashers move into R territory and yet still maintain a widespread appeal. Still Wedding Crashers garned some contriversy.

Of course this is all speculation, you can't do anything except speculate when it comes to trends in society like this.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the backlash is having that strong an effect outside of the media? I came of age in the Seventies, so I guess I don't really know - but from everything I've seen on these forums and SA, the amount of ordinary young people having sex really hasn't changed much. Attitudes towards abortion HAVE changed tho.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Abortion attitudes are one thing that seems to have changed very quickly and very recently. I couldn't begin to figure out why, but it almost certainly goes back to religion.

Outside the media people are still having lots of sex just like they always were and I don't think anything is going to change that. Media doesn't necessarily reflect society's opinions, but does influence them; as the media changes so do people's ideas on the topics it portrays. The media might not reflect society as a whole, but it certainly influences it. So in a way I would say that it is society which reflects media (not the other way around), but its a very distorted image.
 
Originally posted by: rnp614
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Why is violence more acceptable than sex in our society (US)?

Because of Christianity.
Click to expand...


Completely
Click to expand...

Er, what about non christian societies? It's always been this way.

Killing is an inherent social function. Thousands can join in at the same time. It is a pleasurable, rewarding thing once you get into it. It must be because as a species, we certainly get off on it.

Sex on the other hand tends to be more intimate, at least you can't fsck as many people as quickly as you can kill.

That's probably the basis for it all.
 
Because they'd rather you spill their blood than your seed.

[edit] Bonus points if inspired bible verse is said!
 
Out of nearly fifty years on this planet, half were spent in Europe. The morals here in the US are completely different than those of European nations. Television media doesn't block nudity. Fact you can see those boobs nearly any hour of the day in commercials. Boobs and more can be viewed more after 9pm and downright humping after 11pm. All on normal terrestrial broadcast TV. You venture into any hotel or swimming pool complex sauna and everyone shares the same wooden benches ? men, women, & children ? and their all completely naked! (ah the good life)
What you don?t see on TV is the glorified blowing someone?s brains out. That is censored to a point. I think most Americans think blood and violence are acceptable and nudity in any form is taboo and should be censored at all costs! You?ve got your friggin priorities completely back@sswards. And while I?m on my soapbox, Europeans are introduced to booze at a young age. They grow up with it. Wine may be served during the family roast on Sunday. Children learn to respect alcohol from a young age so when they turn 18, and able to drink in pubs or gasthaus?s, they don?t go crazy. But here in the US, beer and co. is so taboo that when people do turn 21, they go on a drinking binge and kill themselves by alcohol poisoning. What the f@ck!
 
How did this start with being a discussion on why violence is viewed as okay, and sexually explicit content is viewed poorly, to a rant about how the U.S. is "sooooo" backwards because they don't show nudity on TV. This is hilarious. You can definitely tell that this forums has about 80% men in it. 😉 but I digress.
 
Sex is not yet mainstream US because sex = money
Sex sells...period. We use sex to attract patronage and just show em enough to get people interested. As long as rich legislators can keep sex regulated sex will still = money.

If we started just showing full nudity on TV, people will become desensitized to it and it will no longer sell. Most of vegas would be out of business (except for some gambling.) TV stations could not charge extra for the nudie channels. big movies with the one hot half naked chik would no longer be as attracting. Advertising would have to come up with something new to sell stuff.


Cliff notes... Common Sex/Nudity on TV means end of US economy
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Sex on the other hand tends to be more intimate, at least you can't fsck as many people as quickly as you can kill.
Click to expand...

Only because we havn't poured the type of money into it that we have poured into killing.
Given the hundreds billions of dollars this world has sent on killing, if spent on fvcking, we would have machine fvckers, and stealth fvckers that could fvck entire citys at one time. We would have even probably invented the Atomic Fvck, or perhaps we would be able to have faster then light Fvcking by now. We are basicly still in the caveman days with our fvcking technology. So, I ask everyone one here to encourge our government to do some fvcking research.
 
Because sex is more likely to influence kids. Most kids are smart enough to know it's not ok to kill someone or beat the crap out of them. However, if kids constantly see sex as they're growing up they'll see that as normal and be more likely to have sex at a young age.
 
Originally posted by: Siva
How old are you?
Click to expand...

Old enough to remember the 70's and remember that the vast majority of Americans were not hippys. They were not 'smoking drugs and having sex all throughout the sixties and seventies.' The majority of us were sitting at home watching Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days, and The Brady Bunch.

There have been definite shifts in the moral views of this nation, that is true, but I think those shifts have happened throughout the history of the world and happen quite often.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Morals have held steady for a long time before the last century. They did change, but it took hundreds of years, not a decade or less. This is probably a direct effect of our technology. I also think they played a lesser role in people?s lives then they do today. Simply put, an 18th century farmer didn't have much need to consider the relative moral value of sexual expressions.


The 90s signified a kind of sexual revolution since it started the current era of total media saturation in sexuality. What we are experiencing now in terms of sex is a backlash from religious groups due to a combination of increased strength from our more conservative government and a jump in religious activism after 9/11. Since our government and the religious right are on the same page it makes it easier for regulators to tighten up on restrictions to what the find immoral (sex), with wealthy and powerful religious organizations backing them. It also makes it more marketable to tone down sexually, most of the major films released are PG-13. Its nice to see a trend going in the other direction as more movies such as Wedding Crashers move into R territory and yet still maintain a widespread appeal. Still Wedding Crashers garned some contriversy.

Of course this is all speculation, you can't do anything except speculate when it comes to trends in society like this.
Click to expand...

Interesting, you know that something similar happened in the 20's and 30's? With the new technologies of film and photography becoming mainstream, porn became among the first and most popular uses for the medium. Eventually there was a large backlash in the 40's and 50's that created much of the most hardcore puritanical attitudes we see today. That was then followed by the somewhat more extream sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's. History repeats itself? Maybe we can do more then speculate. Perhaps what we are seeing today is the an era of new moral backlash that will lead to an even faster, even more extream sexual revolution? It does seem that each cycle gets shorter.

 
Originally posted by: Citrix
My wife and I would rather our kids see nudity and sex like in shows like Rescue Me than have them watch violence. one is natural the other is un-natural and barbaric.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
But that is what religion is all about: control. It is about "I am right and you are wrong, and I am going to tell you how you should act, how you should behave, what you can wear, etc." People love to enforce their own sexual morality on everyone else, possibly because the ability to do so builds a sense of importance.
Click to expand...

No, that is what you and some perceive as religion. Religion is more about one's self. Finding right and wrong within yourself. Finding truth and true happiness within yourself.

Don't knock religion because of it's said followers.
Click to expand...

I disagree. spirituality is about finding yourself and whatnot, whereas religion is about codifying "moral values", building churches, worshipping in groups, establishing a heirarchical system of priests, cardinals, and so forth on up to the Papacy.

Religion is a social force; it has the ability to give large numbers of otherwise dissimilar people a single common ground. It can provide a glue to form a community, and it can provide incentive to create conflict with those who subscribe to different (and equally arbitrary) beliefs.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
But that is what religion is all about: control. It is about "I am right and you are wrong, and I am going to tell you how you should act, how you should behave, what you can wear, etc." People love to enforce their own sexual morality on everyone else, possibly because the ability to do so builds a sense of importance.
Click to expand...

No, that is what you and some perceive as religion. Religion is more about one's self. Finding right and wrong within yourself. Finding truth and true happiness within yourself.

Don't knock religion because of it's said followers.
Click to expand...

I disagree. spirituality is about finding yourself and whatnot, whereas religion is about codifying "moral values", building churches, worshipping in groups, establishing a heirarchical system of priests, cardinals, and so forth on up to the Papacy.
Click to expand...

Spirituality is a part of religion, well it is for me. What you are describing is not so much religion, but the concept of church, or the new concept of church at least. And you seem to confuse Christianity and Catholicism. Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics of course. The original definition of the word "church" was any two or more people together discussing God. It had nothing to do with buildings, heirarchical systems of people, money, etc.

Religion is a social force; it has the ability to give large numbers of otherwise dissimilar people a single common ground. It can provide a glue to form a community, and it can provide incentive to create conflict with those who subscribe to different (and equally arbitrary) beliefs.
Click to expand...

I would say that churches and thier membership have become a social force, not religion, even though that's what they say drives them. Religion isn't a person, nor a group of people. And yes, these people can use religion to create conflicts, and while doing so, they are not following their religion at all.

I guess what I am saying is, you can bash Christians all you want, but sometimes I take offense to people bashing Christianity (even though I shouldn't). Bashing Christians and bashing Christianity is not the same. Most of the time, in my experience, when people find fault with Christians, it's because those Christians weren't following Christianity. It's like lumping Mother Teresa and George Bush in the same group. Can't do it. On one hand you have a woman who devoted her life to living as Jesus did, and on the other you have a conceited, war-mongering asshole.

In your and other's defense, it is the wrong Christians who are able to grab the spotlights of attention, and those that follow the ways of Jesus often go unnoticed, thus a false perception of the true religion.

Remember, Jesus was Jewish, and he rebeled against the rich and powerful Jews. If he were here today in flesh, he might rebel against the rich and powerful Christians. I cannot even fathom him encouraging what so-called Christians are taking part in today.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top