Another problem many people may have with sex/nudity in the movies is not the sex or nudity per se but the sexism in most Hollywood sex and nude scenes. I would by far prefer that my hypothetical children watch a movie with explicit violence that sensitively and realistically portrayed the effects of that violence rather than any of the many movies that portray women as nothing more than sex objects.
Interesting point, Lamia.
This is a good point, but it begs the question of why sex and nudity are almost always in sexist movies and scenes. The answer is that Americans have lots of unhealthy obsessions concerning nudity. Nudity is seen as wrong, and therefore it is only likely to be present in movies/scenes that are already bad, because of sexism for example.
Also, violence that sensitively and realistically portrays the effects of that violence is not only highly uncommon, but it is also not gratuitous. A better example between comparably gratuitous scenes would be the nudity in The Fifth Element, compared with the bullet through the head scene in The Quick and the Dead. Personally, I would rather let my kids watch The Fifth Element.
Violence is just as real and just as personal as sex. It did not miraculously appear just because of television and “talkies”. It was here since recorded history, and I would imagine before then. In fact, if I may be so bold, violence has been around as long as sex. It is a part of our existence. It just seems strange to me to try and shelter someone from it.
Odd, I grew up watching gorey movies, playing violent games, and sneaking peaks at some boobies at every chance I could and I am not desensetized to violence. I feel a bit of sorrow for people when I hear that they died, but not knowing them, crying and lamenting about it would be pretty pointless. If I cry because my father died, it is ok, but if I cry when Joe Schmoe dies in a construction accident it is seen as a bit wierd.
In fact when I see somebody get turned into hamburger at the movie theater, it is not shocking at all, but when I see some pictures of real dead people on say… Rotten.com or one of those sick sites, I get sick. Perhaps they are what causes problems, not Mr. GI Joe having his plane blown up. (My parents did not like me watching GI Joe cartoons because of the violence. pah)
Personally I would let my kid watch both and not make a big deal out of it. I feel that repressing that behavior just causes problems in the long run. My idea of sex is warped because of my bible thumping, southern baptist parents put in my head regarding sex. Raising the kids yourself and teaching them right and wrong are part of parenting. Plopping them down in front of a TV watching Spongebob Squarepants to avoid violence while working 60+ hours a week is not.
I agree with Erislover, sheltering our kids seems odd. Hiding the fact that violence exists does not stop it from happening. (or sex, thank god)
originally posted by erislover:
Violence and sex are real. There’s no dispute about that. It’s the glorification and unrealistic amplification of these natural acts in the media that merit consideration.
I don’t think nudity has to always mean sexual. It only becomes that way when nude body parts are presented for the sole purpose of tantalizing the audience. Take the scene in Purple Rain, for instance, when Apollonia bares her breasts before jumping in that lake. That was only put in to give the movie extra sex juice, nothing more. But if you consider the bare-breast scene (with the assymetrically bosmed daughter) in American Beauty, there was more to offer the audience than just a hard-on. These breasts were part of the story, and weren’t just 60- seconds worth of eye-candy. Unfortunately, IMO, that’s a Hollywood rarity.
There’s nothing wrong with tantalization for the sake of tantalization. But balance is the key. I think the media does a poor job of presenting the naked body in nonsexual ways. We are subliminally (and not so subliminally) trained to always associate nudity with copulation. So why should we be surprised when people freak out at the sight of a mother nursing in public? It’s only because they are used to seeing men groping boobs rather than suckling infants.!
Hell, GI Joe isn’t even that bad. Most, if not all, of the violence was pryotechnics. When I watched it as a kid, I don’t recall anyone dying. Just stuff blowing up all the time.
Kinda unrealistic too, but it’s a cartoon.
Anyone out there with any training in psychology? Clearly not 
Exposure leads to desensitisation. FACT. PERIOD. The neurological and psychological reasons for this are long and boring but demonstrably accurate (no I dont have a cite 
The difference is that there is far too much violence in the world but not nearly enough sex.
Why is it that we are comfy with explaining to our children about some people flipping out, killing and eating others but some are still not comfy telling their children about the joys and pitfalls of the common blowjob?
The sexual aspect of a person’s life is an inextricable part of them and it exists and develops from the moment they are born and possibly before.
Violence is ALWAYS bad. Sometimes it is neccessary but even then it is a bad thing (or was WWII ‘good for you’? ;-).
As far as I am concerned people are still way too uptight about sex. I am not suggesting that that 6 year olds start shagging but I do think that they should be told all about it.
But having said all of that the two most well adjusted people I know grew up with no censorship in their lives at all. They have always been allowed to watch or read whatever they wanted. Including Predator, Terminator and the Complete Encyclopedia of Eroticism. WHat makes them special is that they felt comfortable asking for explanations of 3hat they were seeing and their parents were always able to tell them the truth. I cant imagine how hard it must be to explain oral sex to your pre-teen child both emotionally and practically but that is what is required.
In summary: Exposure desensitises. PERIOD!
Desensitisation to violence = BAD
Desensitisation to sex = GOOD
But no matter what level of exposure exists good communication is the most important thing.
I find those assertions specious at best. Yes, WWII was good to me. It wasn’t good to the people that had to fight it when they didn’t want to, but I don’t think violence is inherently wrong or bad somehow.
Violence is most likely easier to handle and explain because most people do try to teach their children the (tired) “violence = bad”. Sex isn’t “bad” so that means it is “complicated” and “children aren’t ready to handle it”. I think we know what sort of topics that comes up in and don’t need me to hold your hand through it.
If we would give up the ostritch syndrome and see that “there exists no class of objects C such that for all x in C x = bad” (a nerdy explnation of an application of “there ain’t no absolutes”) then perhaps you would have no need for false dichotomies.
Violence and sex in reality are complicated and thought-provoking phenomena. Our moral praise and condemnation of them (in any order) creates the illusion of simplicity when in fact none is there to be found. Apart from crazy people (which don’t seem to get much air time AFAICT), violence seems to be the end result of a chain of events that could have been head off at many passes. Sex is the culmination of many complicated and perplexing feelings which we basically ignore introspection into and ride the feeling. That doesn’t make it simple.
Or good.
I doubt my love of Arnie movies has limited my capacity to mourn loved one’s deaths, but simply limited my capacity to enjoy Arnie movies. I welcome correction.