Gore, titties and the United States of America.

Here’s the scenario. You’ve been roped in to babysitting a friend’s child, of impressionable years (let’s say ten years old). Without warning, a maniac jumps through the window with a gun and two DVDs.

He says that he will shoot you unless you show one of them to your ward. On one, explicit hardcore pornography. On the other, extreme violence - think a compilation of the worst bits in the Saw or Hostel franchises. Both are of equal length.

Both are obviously extremely inappropriate, but on pain of death which would you choose?

I know we’ve spoken about the U.S.'s relationship with sex and violence before (going apeshit over that Janet Jackson incident for example), but I want some numbers to see if the perception is true.

Personally, I’d go with the porn DVD - the human race couldn’t do without the act of procreation and they’ve got to learn about it someday anyway. Emulating violence however is rarely a good thing.

Well, given your accurate description of the state of affairs in the USA, I could probably be safe in assuming the boy had already seen extreme violence in movies, and one more won’t hurt him. In vacuum, however, I’d agree with you the sex video is better for him.

Honestly, I kept expecting to read where the prior Vice President would come into play in all this.

I thought this was going to be about Al Gore.

Showing the porn would be much more likely to get you arrested.

I’d let him see the scary movie. He’s ten-- he’s probably already seen a lot of violent movies and video games, and hardcore pornography can be comparably harsh. If the choice were between a kind of violent movie and a movie with some sensual but tasteful sex content, I’d choose the titties. Given the extreme content, I think he’s better off watching the violence. I think a kid can better compartmentalize the violence, which he may sort of understand, than the sex, which he probably won’t understand.

The poll is greatly flawed. If I am babysitting, I’m going to show the DVD that will raise the least objection with the child’s parents, regardless of my own beliefs. I would need to know what the parents would want.

Does the violent DVD show real violence, or realistic pretend violence like Saw and Hostel?

Think of it as which is the least harmful. If you think one is definitely going to be more harmful, then the moral thing is to choose the other option no matter what.

Edit: @ heathen earthling, it’s a compendium of extreme realistic movie violence - I picked Saw and Hostel as those are the ones I’m most familiar with and I assume the Dope is - it’s not a snuff tape or anything like that.

Ditto. Unless the porn is really weird, the kid is probably going to end up doing everything in it someday. I really hope the same can’t be said for the Saw stuff.

In the real world, though, **Vinyl Turnip **is right–I would get in much less trouble all around exposing the child to horrible violence.

I read Tiper Gore’s “How to Raise PG-Children in an X-rated World.”

In discussing the horrendous movie I Spit On Your Grave, she glosses over the gang rape of a woman in favor of decrying, in extremely graphic detail, her vicious murders of her attackers.

Another person who says the violent DVD, because he’s probably already seen it in this country, and I don’t feel like getting arrested for showing a child porn.

If it was a boy, I’d show the porn. If it was a girl, I would show the violence. That is messed up probably, but that’s what I would do.

I apologise for those who expected some explicit version of An Inconvientient Truth.

Although as pointed out maybe his moralising wife had something to contribute to the state of affairs in the U.S.

Would we really have to worry about arrest if it’s a random maniac behind it all?

I was going to vote “show the porn”, but I forgot about the legal ramifications until I read some of the replys. :smack:

Guess I’ll have to settle for the gore.

For those stating that they are worried about getting in trouble with the law - do you agree with the spirit of the law, i.e. that the sex would be worse than the violence, or are you going along with the letter of the law just to avoid trouble for yourself? The latter seems rather immoral - you’re doing something that you think would be more harmful to avoid problems for yourself down the line.

Although, since this is one of those “you have a gun to your head” scenarios - nobody in their right mind would show either of these materials to children normally - I’d imagine that the court would let you off as being coerced and instead go after the nutter who forced the issue for any legal ramifications.

My first inclination was the gore, just because I’d be more comfortable with that.

But considering my comfort, the comfort of the child, and what will be less damaging to the child, let’s consider that THERE’S AN ARMED MANIAC IN THE ROOM THREATENING TO KILL US. What’s on TV is of little consequence.

Mayne you should have titled this thread “Gore, Bush and the United States of America.”:smiley:

Depends on the porn. If it’s something directed by Candida Royalle, or girl-on-girl stuff, then porn gets the nod. If it’s male-domination, slap-the-whore-around stuff, then bring on the gore.