I don’t think there is a GQ answer for this unless someone pulls out the Hays Code, but that still doesn’t account for everything.
In American movies, violence seems to get a pass. I can go to movies or watch TV and see heads getting blown open and people impaled and it almost goes unnoticed. However, the use of the word “fuck” or “shit” will guaranty an R rating for an otherwise wholesome blood-and-guts extravaganza or bleeped out of a TV show before 11pm and most likely after 11pm as well. And heaven forbid there be a bare boob on TV or any of the “seven dirty words” on the radio. I would even go so far as to say that the disgust with “torture porn” is not about the violence and gratuous gore, but rather the underlying sexuality and the subtle combination of sex with violence.
Take the bus scene from Final Destination. If that is shown on TV, I guaranty “the bus scene” would be shown but if the actress had flashed her breasts or told the guys to “fuck off” there would be some pixels or bleeping going on. So why this dichotomy in our collective (or is it mandated) standards and should we change them? What would it take to open it up? Simple a more liberal FCC chair or is it mandated in law or is it at the discretion of judges?
My wife is Brazilian-so we get TV Globo (the Brazilian TV channel).
Last month, it was Carnevale week in Brazil…and TV Globo ran an ad with a very attractive young lady dancing the samba-wearing NOTHING but body paint and glitter.
I think I have been harmed by seeing this…is this grounds for a lawsuit?:mad:
I think the standard logic is something like “Movie violence is unambiguously fake, and depicts situations unlikely to occur in real life. Sexual behavior in movies, however, is at least somewhat real. No one actually has sex in non-pornographic films (with rare exceptions), but kissing, fondling and so on are more-or-less as depicted. Ditto for profanity. Further, both sex and profanity are things Our Vulnerable Children might actually encounter in the real world. Since we don’t want Our Vulnerable Children thinking sex or profanity is okay, it’s best to shield them from real depictions (or nearly-real depictions) of such conduct in film.”
I don’t find this logic persuasive, mostly because I’m not convinced that sex is a bad thing, or dangerous for children to see depicted on television. (With appropriate and boring lectures by parents, of course). But that’s the argument.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. This thread again? This is, like, the third time this month we’ve hashed this out. The answer is the same: We don’t want children to know about sex but we don’t care if they know about violence. Sex is for adults only while violence isn’t OK for anybody. Children won’t be able to run people over with buses but they might try to have sex in some fashion. Finally, you’re ignoring all the sex and nudity they do allow on TV and in movies.
The answer won’t change no matter how many times we do this thread.
And the swearing is, if you think about it, real. That is, the words are actually being said; they’re just being said by an actor in a fictional situation. That being said, the whole thing is absurd and patronizing.
I agree there’s no new ground to cover here, but who is “we?” I don’t think it’s unusual for parents to tell their children at least a little bit about sex when they’re young - although that’s not the same as letting them watch it in movies.
The people who appear to benefit most from this argument are the film actresses who don’t want nudity and fondling to be an expected part of the job. From that perspective, it is completely understandable: most people wouldn’t want the whole world to be able to see them naked, but there’s nothing traumatic about acting in some harmless fake violence.
So, are actresses one of the groups responsible for making this logic mainstream?
I think it’s simply that violence is much easier to explain to children than sex. I mean, small children are violent little bastards; but unless something is very wrong, they aren’t sexual.
The problem with these kind of arguments is that I fear it would only lead people unreasonably inclined toward restricting sex and swear words to then also restrict violence, rather than permitting both, or flip-flopping on what is permissible. I don’t believe shielding kids from sex, swears, and violence is particularly beneficial. When they turn 18, suddenly they would be let loose onto a world which they haven’t even a passing familiarity with. If they are unable to see the horrors of war, how can we suggest they have reasonably chosen to join the military? If they are unable to inspect a loving relationship, how can we suggest they have reasonably chosen a mate?
Thankfully, the prudes in our society have not made any particular headway on actually stopping actual young adults from access to these materials. It’s a little horrible to think how many might have learned about sex from internet porn rather than some other material which would more accurately portray relationships of various kinds (good and bad), but it is better than thinking the prudes have actually won just because they impose NC-17 on some movie.
I wasn’t ignoring it, but movies with sex or swearing are rated more restrictively than violence.
And a lot of posters are talking about depicting sex, but it is not necessarily the depiction of sex but the body? A bare boob shot or half a butt-crack in “Survivor” or a movie playing on TV is certainly not depicting sex but we get to see quite of bit of sexual activity in various states of undress (but not nude) on prime time shows. Here’s a question, Frances McDormand flashes her musician boyfriend in Laurel Canyon. Not really all that sexual but it would be censored from TV. Why?
Really? There’s nothing hypocritical about raising moral objections to depictions of one perceived sin (sex) and ignoring that of another (murder)? :dubious:
Because some prudes, way back when, put in place restrictions on the kind of thing they didn’t approve of in movies at that time. That was things like sex and swear words. They never imagined the levels of simulated violence that would be possible as film techniques improve and artists searched for more extreme things to film. Or maybe there is so much violence in movies because they (the film makers) want to graphically depict the extremes of human existence and they aren’t allowed to go down the path of sex and drugs, so they turn to guns and explosions.
Besides, you can’t see raw sex on TV but it’s not like it is hard to find. Last it heard, there is a whole industry that produces films with graphic sex in them. If we didn’t have such violence on TV then I would have to use the interwebs to find images of exploding heads.
What it basically comes down to is that a small, but unfortunately vocal and politically influential, segment of the American population adheres to a religion that has major hang-ups with sex, but has no such hang-ups with violence. As a result, to placate their religious sensibilities, sex is censored to a degree that violence isn’t, because they don’t see the violence as an issue, but a brief view of nekkid butt is an offense against God. That’s it. That’s the only reason. And us Americans are foolish for letting that minority have influence in excess of their numbers.
Obviously the Puritan religious ethic the United States started out with has a whole lot to do with this.
I know the FCC censors over the air programming, but I don’t understand why so many cable channels self-censor as well.
I don’t mind cartoon like violence, but graphic violence and pain are a total turnoffs for me and I avoid them with some care. I do not wish to put that stuff into my brain. No slasher movies for me.
Agreed. It’s the old Christian ideal that sex or any other form of pleasure besides religious ecstasy and sadism is evil, while violence is just fine. You can’t slaughter the unbelievers without violence, after all.
