I totally, totally think we might not be arrested but would be open to civil suits up the wazoo.
Mr Moto, and others, I guess it really would have to depend on what the hardcore explicit pornography was. if it’s just nasty, dirty consensual sex, that’s one thing, but if it’s beatings or rape or blood and violence…I’d rather not have the kid connect that with sex.
Plus, I grew up in this country. There’s no doubt some of it has seeped into my head. I am so glad I am neither a kid nor have kids so I don’t have to deal with this. I can talk to the kid about violence (all bad, except in self-defense) and god (different people believe different things) and all that but to have to draw the line between “This is good sex, and I hope you have that one day, but not soon,” and “this is terrible, awful, no-good, very bad sex, and you should never have that” is not a line I want to have to draw.
IMHO, I think most people anywhere would pick the violence. The criticism leveled at the state of things in America usually refers to nudity and not actual hardcore porn. Hasn’t that been shown to have more negative effects than violence when seen at a young age?
Anaamika, your last sentence reminds me of South Park where Token’s (?) parents try to discuss the porn he just saw. “And when instead of a guy and a girl, six guys take a crap on her, is that still love?”
Sadly, a ten year old in America has seen Saw (I - XX) already. So I would have to go with the gore as the least surprising to him or her. He will probably become bored and complain he’s already seen the film at the theater with his parents.
Actually, I’d tend to incline the other way. It’s precisely because sex is a more routine part of life that “explicit hardcore pornography” can be dangerous.
A film showing something horribly violent being done with a chainsaw will give nightmares, but it will not, I think, warp said child’s relationship with chainsaws for life. At worst he might develop an odd phobia.
“Explicit hardcore pornography,” on the other hand, runs the risk of warping a child’s psyche regarding one of the basic parts of adult life. Lots of people have fetishes because of formative early sexual experiences; a handjob at 12 while in the shower might lead to a lifetime of being turned on by running water. What happens to the sexual psyche child forced at gunpoint to watch a rape scene/bukkake/gangbang/kiddie porn, I shudder to wonder.
Mind you, if it was a tender love scene, it’d be different. But the OP didn’t say that.
He didn’t say rape scene/bukkake/gangbang/kiddie porn either. I have to wonder where you guys are getting your porn!
With the OP’s permission, can we assume that the porn is your basic, generic Adam & Eve complimentary DVD? Basic oral and penatrative, with the occasional gilr on girl scene thrown in?
Heck to save his life I’d show him both, but in reality it depends on the kid. I personally would lean towards the porn only because horror and violence cause me to have nightmares and I suspect the guy with the gun is already going to interrupt my sleep.
As far as what the OP was actually digging for - I don’t really have a problem with either sex or violence in entertainment but I do think that our rating system should clearly spell out what is there so each parent can decide on their own what is appropriate for their child. Children are not homogenous and each parent should be able to make decisions based on their childs personality. The responsibility that the entertainment industry holds should be limited to providing them the information required to make that decision.
A crazed gunman is going to break into stately Wayne Manor and force Batman to force a young Dick Grayson to watch violence and porn. That’s no reason to assume that he’s into the weird stuff.
Complicating factor: Either way, we’re stipulating that the kid is getting exposed to real-life ultra-violence. The maniac jumping through the window with the gun is probably more traumatic than either movie.
But I’m not sure of what this means for my answer. I could argue that since he’s seeing real violence, then fake violence will pale in comparison, and I should show the violent movie. Or I could argue that there would be a synergy between the real and fake violence that would make the whole experience significantly more traumatic (“Mr. Chronos, is that bad man going to do those things in the movie to us?”), in which case I should absolutely avoid the violent movie, even if it means showing the porn. So I just don’t know.
I picked the violence because I figured the kid’s parents would find that less objectionable than porn, which is kind of stupid considering the situation. Chronos has it right, the worst part of the scenario is the maniac jumping through the window with the gun. If I just end up answering with the first thing that pops into my head, it would be the porn.
I have nothing to add to this thread, but it reminds me of what Dennis Miller said about the 2000 election: “Bush versus Gore? Is this an election or a snuff film?”