In the Media: Sex vs. Violence

[echoplex]

Something interesting, if not peculiar, I've noticed (in the U.S., not sure about other countries) is the ways in which the attitudes of the media (and by extension, the people) differ regarding sexual content and violent content. It seems that sexual content has always been more heavily censored than violence. Movies air on basic television featuring gunfights, images of war, murder, blood, and just about anything else short of torture (though one wouldn't need many more channels to find that); but one nipple slip at the Super Bowl years ago nearly traumatized a nation (lol), and nudity -- even non-sexual nudity -- is still strictly censored.

Not that I'm clamoring for nudity or anything (it's easy to find). I just think it's interesting how the attitudes differ.

I wonder where people's (and you guys') attitudes on this stem from. I'm conflicted; on one hand, it seems odd that an act that creates life should be covered while acts that destroy life are shown front and center. But on the other hand, it may be that sex is simply not something that should be public like violence and war often are, due to its intimate and personal nature. (in other words, it's not censored because it's 'bad', but because boundaries need to be set and respected)

Still, I always found it odd that my parents would let my younger sister (who's 10 years younger than I) watch a movie where someone is savagely beaten and/or shot, but then make her cover her eyes when a breast or butt is visible. It's a weird double-standard, even if it occasionally makes sense.

What say you?

EDIT: This movie touches on this topic, regarding how films are rated.

 

[Words]

due to its intimate and personal nature. (in other words, it's not censored because it's 'bad', but because boundaries need to be set and respected)

----


What if we were to show the opposite, what would happen?

Children could consider this non-offensive act of "love" harmless and "things could happen"...what would that result into?

Violence is not so extreme given that "when you punch someone, you get punched".

EDIT: There's no direct negative reinforcement in one. could be a factor in why.

 

[echoplex]

What if we were to show the opposite, what would happen?

It's hard to say. I think the effects would be different for a society that has always done that versus one that has always done the opposite and then switched. I could see plenty of 'good' and 'bad' outcomes, many of which would depend on how we respond to it. Hiding violence may actually result in more violent impulses -- perhaps viewing violent images actually provides a release, thus preventing real violence. I dunno. Showing more nudity might cause people to lose respect for others' boundaries, as if nothing is 'sacred', so to speak.

EDIT: There's no direct negative reinforcement in one. could be a factor in why.

Good point. Sex can't stop sex, but opposing violence can stop violence, temporarily at least.

 

[Words]

It's hard to say. I think the effects would be different for a society that has always done that versus one that has always done the opposite and then switched. I could see plenty of 'good' and 'bad' outcomes, many of which would depend on how we respond to it. Hiding violence may actually result in more violent impulses -- perhaps viewing violent images actually provides a release, thus preventing real violence. I dunno. Showing more nudity might cause people to lose respect for others' boundaries, as if nothing is 'sacred', so to speak.

What about examples of countries who allowed sex on tv? examples of nations who doesn't allow violence to be seen? The latter seems useless. violence is often a public affair.

You've shown only one side. What possible positives are there in showing nudity? What possible negatives are there in showing violence?

Good point. Sex can't stop sex, but opposing violence can stop violence, temporarily at least.

I'd rather think of it as "placing your hand on a hot stove".

 

[echoplex]

What about examples of countries who allowed sex on tv? examples of nations who doesn't allow violence to be seen? The latter seems useless. violence is often a public affair.

I've searched for studies and have so far come up empty, but yes, that would be quite interesting. And yes, violence is often public and cannot be completely hidden, which I wouldn't be in favor of anyway.

You've shown only one side. What possible positives are there in showing nudity? What possible negatives are there in showing violence?

Indeed.

Positives with nudity: demystifies the human body, makes sex less of a 'big deal' (which could also be negative though), may influence people to be less ashamed of their body.

Negatives with violence: Desensitizing to the point where inflicting pain doesn't seem so 'bad' (especially the case with violence portrayed with unrealistic results, like injuries that heal immediately or no consequence of death), may glamorize violence (make it seem cool, noble, etc.), may inspire already-unstable people to commit violent acts.

I'm not really taking sides. Though ideally all things would be permitted (provided people could handle that).

 

[Kuu]

Something interesting, if not peculiar, I've noticed (in the U.S., not sure about other countries) is the ways in which the attitudes of the media (and by extension, the people) differ regarding sexual content and violent content. It seems that sexual content has always been more heavily censored than violence. Movies air on basic television featuring gunfights, images of war, murder, blood, and just about anything else short of torture (though one wouldn't need many more channels to find that); but one nipple slip at the Super Bowl years ago nearly traumatized a nation (lol), and nudity -- even non-sexual nudity -- is still strictly censored.

This has been commented on so many times, it should come as a surprise to no one.

When pondering social standards, I always find it useful to ask: 'who benefits from this?'

So.. who benefits from promoting war and suppressing sexuality in the US?
(Hint, hint, hint.)

lovely times we live in.

 

[Cavallier]

The independent film you mention Echoplex is actually quite eye opening.

I'm a little disturbed that we can allow our children to watch violence but not sexuality. It think a lot of people view children as innocent creatures and that if we expose them to sex too early on then we are robbing them of their innocence. My cousins were horrified when they started bleeding one day. They thought they were going to die because their mother didn't have the nerve to explain menstruation to them. Idiot. When you own squeamishness starts to affect the strength of your children you have a problem.

Also, I am disturbed that so many people equate nudity with sex. When watching Shutter Island there is a scene involving naked insane asylum inmates. The teen girls behind me could do nothing but giggle at the sight of these bloody unfortunates. Later on I heard them joking about how cute they thought these guys were. I suppose it was a coping mechanism but it made me realize that since we repress nudity we have equated nudity with sex. Personally, nudity is much more about vulnerability then it is about sex.

 

[key]

The way we "treat" nudity and sex as a species is immature at best. It also directly results in so many f** *p people around us.
So to me there is zero problem with the Media itself; it simply reflects the "general" attitude towards sexuality.

 

[Atrium Pool]

Speaking from personal beliefs / experience / observations...

You're watching someone have sex and being overtly sexual... Women take off all their tops, men take off all their bottoms, you see full pubic hair, humping, liquids, hair in places even more private than the crotch, shiny plasmatic substances, holes... What do you do next? Just sit and keep watching it?

As much as we'll learn from looking at naked human bodies, we learn pretty quickly. Demystification: complete. Now what? See more? Or just stop complaining when more people want to exhibit full f*cking in public during the daytime?

I always thought of having sex and watching others do it as something private. I'm all for decriminalizing America's hang-ups over nudity but once that's happened, what then? We just keep looking at it? I would think that would be dreadfully boring.

Violence on the other hand... Is supposed to be a taboo because it's almost never really okay to hurt other people. Only when you're playing sports and there's an agreement by all parties that whatever happens just happens. Occupational hazard.

I'm a little disturbed that we can allow our children to watch violence but not sexuality. It think a lot of people view children as innocent creatures and that if we expose them to sex too early on then we are robbing them of their innocence. My cousins were horrified when they started bleeding one day. They thought they were going to die because their mother didn't have the nerve to explain menstruation to them. Idiot. When you own squeamishness starts to affect the strength of your children you have a problem.

Also, I am disturbed that so many people equate nudity with sex. When watching Shutter Island there is a scene involving naked insane asylum inmates. The teen girls behind me could do nothing but giggle at the sight of these bloody unfortunates. Later on I heard them joking about how cute they thought these guys were. I suppose it was a coping mechanism but it made me realize that since we repress nudity we have equated nudity with sex. Personally, nudity is much more about vulnerability then it is about sex.

No idea what Shutter Island is but I know a lot of girls (and some guys too) who only go to movies for the cute / handsome / hot guys. They'll watch anything. Horror, action, thrillers, dramas, TV, YouTube, Sports, News (Anderson Cooper is a better example but I also think Keith Olbermann is fine as hell). As for coping mechanisms... I don't think so. I think that's more an example of desensitization. And apathy. It affects everyone I know. It's even hard for me to care. Our entire culture has become obsessed with making everything more confrontational than it is. What are people supposed to do with that? I still don't see any horror / action-thriller movies about overpopulation. Instead, we're overpopulated with ultra-confrontational movies about everything (else) under the sun.

 

[azelismia]

up until very recently heavy violence was censored on american tv. try to find a show pre-1990 that showed very detailed graphic scenes of violence. they might show someone getting shot but it would never be realistic. even on the news they didn't show graphic stuff until the mid 80's. it was a big deal.

Sex on tv tends to focus on females which furthers the whole objectification of women and by it's very nature is always more graphic than pretend violence has to be. they still edit out scenes from very R rated movies on television. Basically if the content would garner an R rating in the movies it is not allowed to be shown on broadcast television in it's final state. FCC regulations.