gratuitous violence vs gratuitous sex: which is worse?

If I ever had kids (and god forbid that ever happens) I’d let them watch all of it. Who cares? When they’re younger, they probably don’t understand or enjoy those types of films or TV shows. When they’re older and they do understand those things, where’s the harm? As long as you remind the kids that gratuitous sex has both good and bad consequences, and that violent acts also have real world consequences, I don’t see a problem with it.

So a six year old sees two people doin’ the horizontal bop, what’s the big deal? How does that harm the kid at all? So he sees a guy blow another dude’s head off, what’s the big deal? The violence might be scary or disturbing to the kid, but frankly what does it say about us adults if this violence isn’t disturbing even to our more mature minds?

Heck, if I had a preteen child who was watching good cinema like Clockwork Orange or Pulp Fiction, I’d be proud he was enjoying that rather than mind-numbing junk like Rush Hour 2.

In the USA, it seems we are far more worried about sex than violence. I think we have it wrong and Europe has it right. We need to stop considering sex “dirty” and glorifying violence. IMHO, no kid has ever been screwed up by seeing sex in a movie yet they are desensitized to violence every day. It seems that the latter would have a greater effect on society.

Lack of gratuitous sex is worst of all…

MGibson wrote:

No one got their head cut off in Star Wars.

Sure, Vader strangled one guy and started to telekinetically strangle a second, C-3PO got taken halfway apart by the sandpeople, and in the cantina Kenobi sliced that guy’s arm off with his lightsaber, and Greedo got shot from under the table, and various Imperial stormtroopers and rebel cannon-fodder got shot dead, and all sorts of X-wing and Y-wing pilots got blown up, and the Death Star and the entire planet of Alderaan were both incinerated – but there was not one single decapitation in the entire movie!

(The Empire Strikes Back was another matter.)

orginally posted by TGD:

Um, chill a little, why doncha. All I’m asking for is what you consider the lesser of two evils. The hypothetical scenario goes like this: if you had to pick one, which one would you rather your children be exposed to–sex or violence? Also, I’ll refer you to the last sentence in the OP.

If you feel the topic is ridiculous, TGD, why waste the disk space saying so? Just skip it!

by december:

American media places a lot more restrictions on sex than it does on violence. Why is this? If exposure to media imparts a significant influence on a child’s development, why is it that the average 12 year old is allowed to feast his/her eyes on rather horrific scenes of assault and brutality, with little or no comment from adults, but as soon as a bra comes off and some boobs appear on the screen, Mama is covering Bobby Jr.'s eyes with both hands? Why do we think seeing a pair of mammary glands is going to send Bobby Jr. falling into a down-spiral of depavity, but seeing something like Good Fellas is all right?

The point of my question, december, is to get some opinions on the matter. My question to you is: Why do you ask?

by erislover:

Some violence and sex in movies is, IMO, depicted gratuitously. In certain genres of movies there’s always gotta be that one sex (“love”) scene thrown in that really adds nothing to the storyline; it’s just there to contribute to the “juice” factor of the movie or fill in where there’s a gap in the dialogue. Same with violence. We all want to see someone get shot in the head, but do we really need to see the ax slicing through someone’s face and do we really need to see both halves of the head fall cleanly apart and land with thuds on the floor?

But certainly not all violence and sex is gratuitious. The violence displayed in Saving Private Ryan was gruesome but essential to the telling of the story. The passionate sex displayed in Legends of the Fall was also important. I can’t say the same thing about the sex scene in White Men Can’t Jump.

Wouldn’t that rule out both sex and violence?

:smiley:

In movies where the sex and violence are gratuitous, though, I think they are about all that hold the movie together. Remove that and you have no movie.

And I liked “Predator”, damn it!

Bad movies which are only held together by gratuitous sex and violence cater to our consumer desires, which I think should be curtailed, not fed. Not that all entertainment need be educational, but at least it should not corrupt a society. People already do not know how to relate to each other and anything gratuitous does not help either.

So, do you think that the people who rate movies in the US have serious issues? What about the people that make movies? I think they do.

Sex should be private, but it’s a normal part of adult life. Violence is not. But Americans in general are more comfortable with kids seeing bloody pre-meditated murder than even plain old nudity. I don’t understand it.

Oh yeah, if I fucked someone with a desk, I assume I’d get rated NC-17, right?

I think context is always more important than content.

The worst violence for me is the jokey buddy-movie shoot-&-quip kind of violence - far worse than horror gore or realistic pain.

Corrupt a society, Ms Fisk?

I’d take that view even further and
declare the term “gratuitous sex”
to be an oxymoron.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Man, while I personally think the OP is poorly phrased, this has caused me to think a bit.

Not sure what you mean about “gratuitous explicit sex.” I have not seen any family flicks where suddenly appeared the beast with 2 backs or other “graphic” sex. But I (fondly) remember Bev D’Angelo in the shower in Nat’l Lampoon’s Vacation - or the homecoming queen (also in the shower) in Sixteen Candles. And while I don’t normally consider myself a prude, I must admit that I was a little unconfortable when those scenes came on and I was watching the vids with my kids. We don’t tell our kids that there is anything “dirty” about the human body, or sex, but I’m not sure we want to send them the message at an early age that showing nude women for titillation is all that great either.

See, I’d rather have my kids watch Kissing Jessica Stein. It was rated R, but it had no nudity. Maybe 1 or 2 scenes where sex was presented but the participants were either mostly clothed or under covers. Much of the movie dealt with sex, homosexuality at that, but there was no gratuitous nudity.

I guess I have more problems with the “gratuitous” part instead of the sex or violence part. I would also have more difficulty with “graphic” sex or violence, than “represented.” Hard to make a generalization.

On the violence side, one of my son’s favorite movies is Kelly’s Heroes. They wipe out dozens if not hundreds of Germans. But I guess the violence is neither gratuitous nor graphic. But it will be a long time - if ever - before I bring a slasher flick home fromt he store.

Regarding the rating system, we aren’t all that concerned with gratuitous profane language. Or representation of drug use. I was surprised when we rented one movie - Saving Grace I believe - that involved a proper middle-aged British woman growing pot to save her home. It was rated R, and I don’t think there were even any swear words in it. Just because of the subject matter. That struck me as wierd.

Or another example, when my kids were younger we took them to see The Phantom. (I always LOVED the comic, and was SO pissed when the Trib stopped carrying it!) If you haven’t seen it, it is a very entertaining, campy, family flick. But very early on, the characters say a couple of swear words - I forget which ones. Then there is nothing objectionable for the rest of the film. I couldn’t figure out why they had to include those few words, unless it was to avoid the unmarketable “G” rating. Again, my objection was to the gratuitousness, rather than the specific content.

What those of you out there without kids may not realize, is how much of what you do as a parent involves trying to imbue your kids with “good values” and enable them to make “good decisions.” Direct them to “quality” instead of the “crap” that is out there. Or at least enable them to make such decisions for themselves. You never can be quite sure what little thing the kid is going to pick up on as the guide for his future behavior. You spend hours agonizing over how to have a particular discussion with your kid, choose what you think is the optimal timing and setting, have the discussion, and the next day discover your efforts were trumped by a TV commercial! A parents life is filled with suchh “successes.” Yet you continue in the attempt,

Yes, that involves me - as a parent - making value judgments, and trying to instill them in my kids. While that might seem intolerant, narrowminded, dictatorial, or some such to folk without kids, it is a CONSTANT process for many parents. Heck, I have to figure out how to teach my kids that veggies are a better choice for dinner than candy, or that they should have juice or milk with meals instead of soda. At the risk of getting carried away with my imagery, I similarly perceive a benefit from guiding them regarding nourishment of their minds through art and entertainment.

Well, as usual, I’m rambling. As I said, I didn’t have much to say about the OP. Sorry.

you with the face, Legends of the Fall is one of my favorite movies ever, but I don’t see that looking at Isabella2’s breast in the later lovemaking scene was, in any way, crucial to the story. I should imagine that had they not shown it I would enjoy the movie just as much.

This is why it is gratuitous, but this is also why it doesn’t matter if it is there IMO. It doesn’t change the story. Was it put there just for titillation or to give us a feeling of closeness with the characters? :shrug: I can see either side.

The sort of “gratuity” that many would like to shelter their children from is the sort that I mentioned, where the movie itself has nothing going for it other than the sex/violence. And I sometimes do like those kind of movies. Robocop, Wild Orchid, 9.5Weeks, etc. These movies had plots that focused entirely on violence and sex. No particular act of either would cripple the movie, and so the entire movie is essentially one long fuck-or-frag-fest. Removing gratuity would remove these movies entirely from the realm of “interesting” because, hey, violence and sex are interesting in and of themselves. Consider:
Boxing, karate, (real) wrestling, romance, horniness, pornography…

I think you get the point. These things are, in fact, interesting to a great many people deviod of any context, making them essentially available for use as pure gratuity.

And this, to me, is not a bad thing. If I had a kid I wouldn’t let him watch a porno and not let him watch robocop. Sex and violence are intrinsically simple but societally complex manifestations of behavior, and neither is strictly good or bad in any real sense (to me) because both can be put on moral or ethical grounds which make the realization of either inappropriate or appropriate.

Instilling beliefs in a child is the parent’s primary (and difficult) task, IMO. It isn’t that you necessarily don’t want your child to not see Debbie fucking everything that moves, but rather that your child would recognize just like you recognize that it is, in fact, purely gratuitious, and use that as the blanket context in which the information is viewed. I want (would want) my child to have a sense of appropriateness, not to put rose-colored glasses on him, so at any time I would let him watch one I would let him watch the other.

I hope that makes sense.

<Broad generalization mood ON>

Because the average American moviegoer is saddled with puritanical Judeo-Christian religious morality that equate sex and nudity as Horribly Bad Things To Be Avoided. F’r instance, notice that one of the key points in the Garden of Eden story is that Adam and Eve quickly covered themselves in shame after they gained enlightenment from the Tree of Knowledge.

In contrast, while violence isn’t condoned by the Bible, it’s not condemned with as strong of a tone, either – the Old Testament is chock-a-bloc with stories of murder and warfare and whatnot, and while the New Testament isn’t as severe, it’s not entirely squeaky-clean either.

Put the two together, and you end up with “violence = bad, sex/nudity = VERY bad,” and that’s what we’ve got in our movie-rating system today.

<Broad generalization mood OFF>

Pretty accurate generalization. Not meaning to hijack too much, but I’ve always wondered how the U.S. became so puritanical in its views. From what I understand it, the Puritans/Pilgrims didn’t wield that much political power outside of their own societies in colonial days. And from the impression I get from the framers of the constitution, Puritanism (from a moralistic standpoint, not the religious group itself) was not that popular amongst the “founding fathers.” So where did we get it from?

Hoopy Frood wrote:

Some of it probably came from the rise in popularity of Victorianism in the 19th century. In Victorian England, not talking about sex became the “in thing”, and eventually the U.S. followed the crowd.

Some of it is also backlash against the 1960s, and some of it is also due to the fear of AIDS. But none of these factors, even combined, seems to be enough to explain American prudishness.

Yeah, I was thinking that the whole Victorian era might have had some effect (but the English seem to have shrugged a lot of the prudishness off, particularly compared to us). But I don’t see too much backlash against the 60’s, if anything the 50’s were more prudish and the 60’s loosened a lot of that up. I think the difference owes more to the Hippy counterculture dying out then an actual regress. I would say there was a net forward progress to come out of that. YMMV.

I actually think the AIDS thing has actually loosened us up. Due to the seriousness of the disease, safe sex was pushed to the forefront. Granted the free-love era of the 60’s and 70’s has given way to a more monogamously minded populace as a result, but this is for safety’s sake more than any Puritanical views. U.S. society in general has shifted to being more open about sex, although, monogamy is still stressed, but now for other reasons beyond simple morality.

But even with the changes, we seem to be still more reserved about it than most countries.

The funny thing about Victorianism-no, you didn’t talk about sex openly.

However, behind the scenes, it was pretty raunchy. VERY raunchy.