Or just showing nudity for that matter? If you flip through the TV channels for 5 minutes you will find numerous examples of of people beating the shit out of each other, destruction, shooting, murder, etc. But showing sex and nudity is VERBOTEN.
I mean, I understand that there’s a lot of sex that’s hinted at and “read between the lines”, so to speak, on TV and film. Then why is showing sexual interscourse badbadBAD? Why do most people apparently find all this violence less obscene and taboo that watching 2 people making love? Or simply showing what Nature has given them? I don’t get it.
Perhaps it’s understood that violence in movies is cartoonish and kind of unreal - sometimes completely unreal - whereas sex is something the kids watching teh movie could really do. I don’t know. Either way, it’s stupid.
I was under the impression that this was mostly an American thing.
Violence built this country. Sex didn’t.
:rolleyes: Oh, wait…
That’s pretty much right (at least among Western democracies). There’s also the prudishness regarding cursing, which is just as ridiculous as the prudishness about sex. It’s pretty funny when some arch criminal says “Forget you, mother-lover” and then proceeds to blow holes in his enemy.
The way I heard it (which could be wrong) was that TV violence was all fake, but there’s not much you can fake with porn. It’s the Real Thing™. You’ve Got the Right One Baby, uh huh. Ooh yeah. Oh oh oh.
I think the funniest censorship I’ve seen was the “Modified for Broadcast” version of The People vs Larry Flynt. In one scene, Flynt shows an audience images of naked women and images of bodies blown apart in a war. He asks the audience which is more offensive. “If you take pictures of mutilated bodies, they give you an award. If you take pictures of naked bodies, they throw you in jail.”
Guess which pictures the network blurred out?
Maybe they should make the sex cartoonish and unreal. Like, any sex between the “King Of Queens” guy and his TV wife.
“Horrible, deplorable sex and violence is OK, as long as there’s no naughty words.”
–Shiela Brovlovski
Parent checking in…
I try to be enlightened, but I do know that my first instinct is a much higher threshold for my kids watching violence than sex. Basically, it does boil down to what behavior I think they would actually imitate. I don’t have any worries that one of my boys will shoot up a police station, or stab someone. I do figure that at some point, they will engage in hot monkey sex. shudder
Also, never underestimate the ‘ick’ factor for all involved. 'Hey, your mom and I did that last night!"
Anyway, that’s it. And bear in mind, this is with us talking about safe sex, etc. to make them informed. It’s just awkward. Though I’ve stopped worrying about language in media as well; as long as the words are not used in my house, we’re all fine. Fortunately, I’ve discovered that the wal-Mart brand Irish Spring soap is the foulest tasting stuff ever.
It’s not precisely true that (American) TV/movies display violence while shying away from displaying sex.
American entertainment media feature sex prominently, but that featuring is most often rendered in a teasing mode: stirring in a lot of provocative sexuality and using prudery in the same way that short mini skirts establish modesty: drawing attention to that which is hidden.
Sex in American TV and movies is rarely about sex, in the sense of portraying it as part of life, part of human experience. It is usually very much immersed in the business of arousing the viewing audience though.
If I had kids, I’d rather them watch bare breasts (like they wouldn’t have seen them before?) than gruesome murders.
All kids are going to covertly seek the viewing of titties eventually, why not allow it “legally” in the household to some extent when they reach a certain age?
I’ve always wondered that myself. I find even simulated violence way more “obscene” than seeing booties/boobs/etc. or people getting it on.
Shoot, it would be even more cartoonish and unreal for me to have sex with the “King of Queens” guy’s TV wife.
Where do I sign up?
In all seriousness, I do agree with the OP’s question. It’s never made sense to me, either: Showing people die is worse than showing them naked? Killing them is less offensive than fucking them? Whose standards ARE these?!?
I’m not buying Marley23’s rationale, however (no offence to Marley23):
Sex in movies is very often “cartoonish and kind of unreal - sometimes completely unreal,” and by the same token, violence is something kids can really do, too.
I agree, the current situation is incredibly bizarre and stupid…but not for that reason.
Slight hijack: Is that true? I thought there were way around that. In mainstream movie love scenes I mean.
Hmm, how many brands did you try?
Agreed. Additionally, I think that young people are more capable of discerning when violence is justified and when it is wrong. I think they are also more capable of discerning the appropriate level of violence that is justified in a given situation. I would not trust them to have the same level of control when it comes to sex.
I still remember going to see True Lies in the theatre when it came out. I was 12 at the time and went with my family.
My mom covered my eyes for the non-naked striptease Jamie Lee Curtis’ character does, but she was perfectly fine with me seeing people gunned down, having knives flung and imbedded in people’s faces, torture, etc. :rolleyes:
She also will get upset if there is more than a kiss in things like cheesy action movies. According to her, there’s just “no reason they had to ruin the movie with that!” Although having people killed, dismembered etc, is apparently A-OK!
When I was 10, my favorite movie in the whole world was Top Gun. It was rated PG, but I’ve been thinking recently that the amount of swearing in it would probably garner it a PG-13 rating if it were released today, but that’s beside the point.
When I watched it with my dad after he bought it for me, he had no problem with the sex scene between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis, probably because there was no real nudity in it. However, watching it again a week later with my babysitter, he made me leave the room when it came on. Of course, he wouldn’t let me listen to Aerosmith either, since they weren’t Christian. :rolleyes:
Apples & oranges. Showing people really dying is indeed way worse than showing them really naked or having sex.
Also, there’s not necessarily any connection between how okay something is to do and how okay something is to show on TV. No one’s going to argue that it’s wrong to take a big steamy dump in the privacy of your own bathroom, but it’s not something I want to see onscreen.
I imagine that as far as American television is concerned, it has to do with the legal definitions of “obscenity” and “indecency.” Violence is not covered under either definition, while sex is. Especially with the current hysterical climate about “indecency” on television, if I were a broadcaster subject to FCC regulation I’d be hesitant about how sexually explicit anything I broadcast was. I realize that the American puritanism about matters sexual well pre-dates the advent of television (or radio, also subject to the FCC) but the FCC certainly perpetuates it.
I think actors also have hang-ups about getting to sexually explicit in their films while not having the same sorts of hang-ups about violence. The Smoking Gun has the “nudity riders” of a couple of actresses posted, which spell out contractually exactly what body parts may be shown on screen and what parts can’t. Some even exclude the possibility of using a body double for more explicit scenes.
And one can’t underestimate the squeamishness of advertisers about having their products placed in a controversial slot.
Personally I really don’t care about network standards. Where this really irks me is on cable, especially cable channels that I pay extra for. I’m currently pissed at Logo, which is a premium cable channel that I can’t get unless I also get Showtime. It’s a channel targeting gay adult viewers and it edits movies for content and language. I’ve emailed a couple of times complaining about it and pointing out how stupid it is and the canned response is that they have to be sensitive to the sort of person who would watch a commercial (there’s those advertisers again) station. Curiously, Logo is owned by the same people who own Comedy Central, who have no problem running uncensored programming during the overnight slots. I’ve suggested to the Powers at Logo that they do the same, but got no reply to that suggestion.