If you had to choose the lesser of two evils for your children to be exposed to, which would it be? A movie showing gratuitous, explicit violence or a movie showing showing gratuitous, explicit sex? Explain why you would choose one over another.
And let there be no copping out by saying you’d pick neither!
Sex is Good.
Violence is Bad.
This is ridiculous. There’s no reason for children to be exposed to either. I’d choose to not watch a movie, and give my kid a book to read.
There’s nothing to debate here, and this thread should more than likely be in IMHO.
-TGD
If there were more gratuitous sex in the world today, there’d probably be less gratuitous violence. (Don’t knock it, it works for the Bonobos!)
I would choose for them to be exposed to the violence. I cannot say why.
Now, a question for you, you with the face, to face:
What’s the point of your question?
Sure there’s a debate. Star Wars had people being killed left and right, one guy got his head cut off, another got his arm cut off, and it was only rated PG. There was another movie about some gay teens in England that didn’t have explicit sex, violence, or language and yet it was rated R. Wish I could remember the name of the movie. Obviously someone out there thinks that sex is more harmful then violence. At least the idiotic MPAA does.
Marc
This is a tough one. For instance, I don’t have any problem with nudity being shown to children. But explicit sex? Like “9 1/2 weeks” explicit or XXX explicit?
What does gratuitous explicit violence mean? Somebody being stabbed fifty times with a steak knife while they scream in agony, or somebody getting shot and falling over without any blood?
The age of different people’s kids will make a big difference in this debate too.
if you get AIDS or herpes from the gratuitous sex then the sex is worse. otherwise it’s the violence.
dal_timgar:
Huh? Why is a movie showing someone getting AIDS or herpes from gratuitous sex worse than one showing gratuitous violence?
I think you may have misread the OP.
While both are, by definition, unnecessary and unwarranted, surely the decision lies in the portrayal. Gratuitous violence that appears comic-book in style, without consequences for those committing it, is far worse than a portrayal of consequence-free sex.
How come? Too difficult to articulate, or are you simply sworn to secrecy?
My answer is that the one I’d more desire to engage in is the one I have fewer objections to. Gratuitous sex, btw.
Crusoe - you’ve been whooshed.
I also have fewer objections to Gratuitous sex than gratuitous violence.
I know there’s no particular evidence that violence in the media = desensitization to real violence, but my personal feeling is that there’s some relationship there.
Not that I’m one of the blame the media crowd, mind you.
I just don’t like goop in my movies.
Gratuitous censorship.
But in the case of my children, when and if I have some, it’ll depend on the definitions exactly.
While, I personally would rather be having sex than getting my ass kicked…
Oh, you mean sex and violence in media and how it relates to children.
Depends on the explicitness of each.
But in general, sex is a natural part of life and is necessary to maintain civilization. The majority of people will have sex at least once in their lives.
On the other hand, violence is not necessary to maintain civilization (other than sometimes force is required to prevent more violence, but that is a reactive result, and would not have been needed if the original violence hadn’t existed in the first place). The majority of people will not kill someone in their lives.
Personally, I’d rather have my kids (when I have them) see sex rather than violence, but ideally I’d screen what they see and make sure that there education on these matters comes from my wife and I (or other appropriate sources, e.g Sex Ed in school), rather than Hollywood.
Of course, then there are those people that take their preteen kids to see The Cell and Scary Movie, but that’s another issue entirely and my feelings on that probably would need to go into The Pit.
You say “gratuitous sex” like it’s a bad thing. 
I might get a bit uneasy at the idea of kids seeing some extreme sexual practices, such as bestiality or heavy BDSM, but all-in-all I think watching two people hosing each other would be better for everyone in the long term than watching two people killing each other.
The assumption that violence and sex are, in fact, gratutious at all. Does that count as a response to the OP?
Should I ever have any children, I would hope to encourage them to realize the importance and fun of sex, and also the nature of incompatible morality that could require violence.
Both have been necessary throughout human history to get to where we are today.
Time is a major factor in this. I’m sure the regulations and guidelines for rating movies is subject so some sort of relativism.
It was mighty risque when they said “damn” or “hell” or whatever it was in Gone with the Wind.
Look at all of the PG-13 movies from the 80s, they all, like every single one, made sure to have the obligatory bare-breasts shot. That wouldn’t fly in a PG-13 movie today.
Remember the infamous line “Don’t F*** with the babysitter,” from Adventures in babysitting? That probably also wouldn’t fly, today.
One more example, look at THX-1138. Messes up movie. Rated PG, if I remember correctly, and that has disturbing stuff going on in it.
-TGD
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you implying that the MPAA has gotten more conservative? Are you saying that they no longer allow bare breasts in PG-13 movies? One example counters that right off the bat - Titanic.
I’d rather my hypothetical kids see a film featuring, while graphic, two individuals showing affection and tenderness towards one another than showing the same individuals beating the crap out of each other.
Make love, not war, and all that.
Yeah, I was going to mention Titanic as well, but Running With Scissors beat me to it.
Also, I believe you are allowed to say F*** once in a movie and still get a PG-13. (Though, I don’t think it is allowed at all in PG.)
Regarding the f-bomb, it depends on context: Sexual use equals R, non-sexual equals PG-13. Albert Brooks once famously complained about this by saying (I’m paraphrasing), “If you tell somebody you’re going to fuck them over a desk, you get an R. If you tell somebody you’re going to fuck them over with a desk, it’s PG-13.”
And me? Sex. No question. It’s not even a debate, as far as I’m concerned. Anybody who’d rather their kids watch people hurting and killing each other than watch people making love has some serious issues.