Violence, Gore, and Sexual Contents! Oh my!

An acquaintance of mine recently posted a picture on deviantART that had a mature content, and boy did it create a debate!

Basically, some people were complaining about the picture because it was depicting two people in a sexual situation (even though neither the genitals nor the female's breasts were even showing), which lead to others arguing that people are generally quick to denounce sex in art, books, movies, etc, even if the subject is treated tastefully (ie. nothing that could be classified as pornographic) while graphic violence is generally more accepted.

What is worse, really? A scene in a movie showing people getting shot, stabbed, beathen to death, and blown to bits left and right, or a scene showing a couple having an intimate moment? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Violence/gore is worse of the two, since sex is something completely natural - I still don't know why people/parents try to make it taboo.. I thought they wanted grandkids? Anyways, I don't mind violence in movies either, since it can be hilariously entertaining.. but out of the two it makes way more sense to censor violence/gore than it does censoring sex and such.

I mean, just how people reacted to the whole Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident made me laugh heartily. C'mon! It was just a friggin' boob, and you couldn't even see half of it because of that weird star piercing. Just think about that the next time you see someone breast feeding in public and everyone's fine with it.

America really has a problem with depictions of sex, faaaar more than depictions of crazy violence. Male genitalia = automatic NC17 rating. Decapitations, guttings, human flesh being blown into bits and flung around = Rated R. Funny how it works.

I have no problem with sex in movies or TV. I mean, if I did, I would never watch The Tudors. There's boobies and butts all over the place in that show. And King Henry just runs around smurfing all the fine ladies. :p And nude photography that's done artfully is one of the most profound photographic genres in my opinion. Some of my absolute favorite photographers in the world have done a lot of amazing nude photography work.

If I had to choose a movie to watch that was either lots of gore, or lots of sex. I'd choose the sex!*

*I'm really not a fan of porn movies though. Sensuality is better than just random smurfing in my opinion.

Why am I feeling like I need to know what image we're talking about? I scanned through your friends list on DA and found some images that were mature, but saw nothing wrong with any of them.

I, for some reason, have the impression that Americans are promiscuous, when in fact, it seems to be the case that you are the least promiscuous bunch. Sexuality is very taboo in America apparently, and that creates the cultural expectation that sex should follow very specific rules. Violence on the other hand, has almost no limits, as long as certain levels of gore are avoided.

I mean, if you think about horror movies, it is basically the theatrical audience watching a man (typically) go about stalking and murdering people in very gruesome fashions. I sat through the movie 'Hostel' and 'Hostel 2' without looking away once. Not going to describe scenes, but it is pretty incredibly violent from an objective standpoint. Yet we don't protest it.

Alternatively, we have incidents like the wardrobe malfunction that happened in the Superbowl half-time show. For a short period of time, people saw a part of a female's anatomy. More ruckus was made about that than a movie where people were tortured and kidnapped, then murdered. There's something bizarre about that.

Oh, i'm not a fan of porn either, because it depicts sex most of the time in a very unrealist way, and it's done in a way that really exploits the actors.

A very sensual scene in a movie, though? It can be beautiful, in an artistic sense, when done correctly.

(It's probably the French part of me speaking louder than the Canadian part, mind you...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breine

I mean, just how people reacted to the whole Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident made me laugh heartily. C'mon! It was just a friggin' boob, and you couldn't even see half of it because of that weird star piercing. Just think about that the next time you see someone breast feeding in public and everyone's fine with it.

---

Yeah, I remember talking about that when it happened. They wigged out over what is basically a side boob. You can see about the same thing and more often if you just head to the beach and watch girls swim.

It's true that the sex/violence relationship is ludicrous. I don't understand why we tolerate one and not the other. By the time I was a young teenager, I know I was mature enough to see two people boinking on screen and not go psycho about it. What's there to go psycho about? Not like I didn't know how it worked. And the stuff on screen is usually pushing intimacy. Romantic junk. That's sweet, not vulgar.

But then I never saw the big deal with actual porn either. If I had a 15-year-old son that was jackrabbiting to porn, I'd probably just "pretend" I didn't know it was going on and wish him good luck. So maybe I'm a little too lenient, I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

Male genitalia = automatic NC17 rating.

---

Not necessarily. I can think of a couple movies off the top of my head that managed to show full frontal male nudity and still receive an R rating.

In society today, I think the main emphasis on any censorship is for children's sake and generally we fear the younger generation's sexual experimentation more than their mindless fighting. You go home with a black eye and a bloody nose, that's just kids rough-housing and taking it too far. You go home and tell your mom that you and a girl were touching each other in your "special places" and the response is "OH GOD! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MORAL FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY?!"

It's way harder to talk to kids about sex than violence, thus we fear media forcing the issue before we can prepare to give them "the talk". I'm sure some kind of warlike mentality comes into play somehow as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Bandito

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

Male genitalia = automatic NC17 rating.

---

Not necessarily. I can think of a couple movies off the top of my head that managed to show full frontal male nudity and still receive an R rating.

---

Eastern Promises is one I can think of


I have no problem with either of the two, but my opinion is that, yes, violence is worse, especially when its the protagonist being violent, it makes younger kids, or sometimes anyone want to be like them. I guess peoples biggest deal with sexual parts in movies are that they might make younger people want to have premarital sex??


My dad used to always tell me, "violence breeds violence"

Violence is worse, as we should have sex daily as adults, just not in public displays. To me, violence is more disturbing, but apparently in North America, violence is more acceptable, both in art and entertainment. While I believe that this may be due to the cultural beginnings of our countries, it still does not make much sense..

I wish this thread was in Eyes on Each Other. It probably belongs there.

Anyway, I will pick 'movies' as my genre of choice for discussion. I am strongly opposed to the way sex is depicted in movies. I am strongly opposed to nearly all sexual references in movies. I am in favor of violence, though.

Why? Well, that's a complicated answer. But mostly, sex in media creates sexual expectations among people and reminds them of their insecurities very deeply in ways that violence simply doesn't. Extreme violence is (for most people) far removed from reality. If I see a person's arm chopped off by a sword, I'm not going to have any negative associations with my real life, and I'm not going to think chopping someone's arm off is suddenly okay. (and neither would most people).

However, if most people see someone sleeping around in a movie, it will do several things: it will make them feel jealous and inadequate, because they get to sleep around and it's usually with people who are much more attractive and scripted than real people. It doesn't ever show all the complications. I am reasonably certain that 95% of people feel this way to some varying degree when they see other people getting to engage in sexual activities of any kind.

Also, it normalizes sexual misbehavior in a way that extreme violence can't really be normalized. This is connected to my first point.

Of course, my position is predicated on my beliefs about what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior in the first place, and since no one ever agrees with me there, I don't expect any of you to agree with me here, either.

The entire world is a hypocrite, as the porn industry holds 60% of the movie share.

My country is far too sex-phobic. I hate it, it's stupid! As a hemophobe, why is violence considered easier to swallow than sexual conetent!? GAH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Also, it normalizes sexual misbehavior in a way that extreme violence can't really be normalized. This is connected to my first point.

---

Wow, I never really thought of it that way (in terms of comparing the two). The more I think about it, the more I think you might be onto something.

On the face of it, I would say that the violence is 'worse' because it's the more graphically disturbing and the more destructive of the two. However, I would agree with Spuuky on the point of the portrayal of sex in the media can either misrepresent things entirely or have the potential to make people feel inadequate. On that basis, I think that the protrayal of sex is much more relevant to most human beings in that most of them can probably relate to it and have more personal feelings towards it, but in terms of how it's actually presented, I would say that the violence is worse. Despite the fact that it is more detached from reality, I think the main aim of violence is to be destructive and often disturbing (as in many horror films, for instance) whereas sex itself can presented in a number of ways, but there is the ability for sex to represented as the coming together of two people in love and is very much constructive rather than destructive in a relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse

To be perfectly honest, I have never fully understood the general population's concerns and reactions with sex, gore, language, etc...

It's not shocking, truly, it is not. We are a culture in which we are steeped in random, pervasive images of nigh all and everything, and so to react as we do to certain things makes me light bit confused.

---

I agree. It's perfectly fine when they show wounded people from war zones or something like that in the news (prime time and everything).. Y'know, people with blood all over, and an arm missing or something like that, but as soon as a violent movie/video game/whatever comes around it's the reason for all the High School shootings and whatnot. People really need to take a chill pill.

RE: Janet Jackson

The uproar over the wardrobe malfunction was never about her breast being there. It was the fact that her breast was exposed on live TV with millions of people (and kids) watching, and that people who would normally censor images like that from themselves and their families were subjected to it. That's why it was a big deal - not because Americans don't like boobies.

Otherwise I kinda agree with Spuuky on why sex is seen as "worse" than violence. Most people see violent images like that and it's immediately filed away as fantasy. Images of sex are more complicated and can give people silly expectations or aspirations. I don't think it should be removed or that it's bad, I just think that more people should realize sex isn't really the way you see it in films - it IS the way you see it in hardcore porn. Gross and hairy and squishy and wears way, way too much make up.

You'll find that most news organizations take great pains to shield their audiences from undue violence - most of the violence you see in the news is either the result of a live action broadcast or editing mishap or it's intentionally placed to convey the reality of a certain situation (footage of post-bomb Sarajevo comes to mind.)

Well the wardrobe malfunction should serve to remind them that life isn't always perfect. Sometimes you're going to see things you shouldn't or don't want to, and then if you have children, you have to explain why or what or how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse

To be perfectly honest, I have never fully understood the general population's concerns and reactions with sex, gore, language, etc...

It's not shocking, truly, it is not. We are a culture in which we are steeped in random, pervasive images of nigh all and everything, and so to react as we do to certain things makes me light bit confused.

---

Mmhmm, It's not shocking because the media has desensitized us to those things, but some people just love to make a mountain of a mole hill. Anywayz, I pretty much agree with the general consensus that sex should be more acceptable than violence.

Basically, it all comes down to whether you would rather have little kids beating on you with their tiny fists or humping your leg.

I think sexual content should definitely be taken more harshly than some spiky haired guy launching his red energy beam of annihilation at some green guy wearing a robe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sagensyg

I think sexual content should definitely be taken more harshly than some spiky haired guy launching his red energy beam of annihilation at some green guy wearing a robe.

---

And why exactly is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

RE: Janet Jackson

The uproar over the wardrobe malfunction was never about her breast being there. It was the fact that her breast was exposed on live TV with millions of people (and kids) watching, and that people who would normally censor images like that from themselves and their families were subjected to it. That's why it was a big deal - not because Americans don't like boobies.

Otherwise I kinda agree with Spuuky on why sex is seen as "worse" than violence. Most people see violent images like that and it's immediately filed away as fantasy. Images of sex are more complicated and can give people silly expectations or aspirations. I don't think it should be removed or that it's bad, I just think that more people should realize sex isn't really the way you see it in films - it IS the way you see it in hardcore porn. Gross and hairy and squishy and wears way, way too much make up.

You'll find that most news organizations take great pains to shield their audiences from undue violence - most of the violence you see in the news is either the result of a live action broadcast or editing mishap or it's intentionally placed to convey the reality of a certain situation (footage of post-bomb Sarajevo comes to mind.)

---

Something to keep in mind though regarding the news outlets is the presence of gore is more likely and acceptable the further it is from the viewers. While the "breakfast test" still applies in many cases, news organizations as a whole, at least American ones, at any rate, are more likely to show a more gruesome scene if it happened off American soil.

For example, there were some truly horrific images to come out of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Americans did not see most of them, like the bodies of the people who jumped to their deaths instead of staying in the building as it collapsed. However, we do often see the aftermath of bombings in Iraq. How close it is to home has a major effect on what we do and do not see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sagensyg

I think sexual content should definitely be taken more harshly than some spiky haired guy launching his red energy beam of annihilation at some green guy wearing a robe.

---

And why exactly is that?

---

I would think the ages when you could be most influenced by these things is 9 and below

Gory Content
Now I don't think a 9 year old could find a chainsaw, carry it over to someone, rev it up without the other person not noticing, lift it up, and proceed to slice them into ribbons (Let alone have the strength to do any of this) I can still see your argument though, the kid may be more violent if exposed to a lot of it, but I don't think it's anything permanent. I think the only real time when a kid becomes a violent adult is when things are going on IRL

Sexual Content
This is something more plausible about little kids who like to 'explore' their capabilities. Sex is something more realistic, like if you were to talk to a kid about it, they're reaction would be "Eww" but now they're seeing an adult do it constantly. This might change their minds into thinking "Maybe it's not so bad . . ." and so on

I think sex should be protected to an extent. Now, NC-17 is ridiculous. I think if you're above the age of 13 you have the right to know what goes on in the sexual world of humans. It's not like we don't hear about going-ons in school anyway, and it's not like kids 13-17 don't look up porn. Adults who assume or who'd like to assume that we don't are insane.

Then on the other hand, younger kids should not be exposed to any until they understand the potential dangers of STDs and pregnancy and things or that sort.

What's wrong with sex? If it wasn't for sex we wouldn't be here. I'm all for sex and stuff! :D

But blood, gore, violence and killing? Thats like, anti-sex. Sex=life, Violence=death.

If it's done tastefully, and is obviously in the name of art...what's the debate? deviantART is an ART website. I've seen lots of things depicting sexual or intimate moments between 2 people on that site.

Ratings are over-rated...and completely unnecessary (christ my spelling is terrible)