Sex VS. Violence Censorship

[Arden Adamz]

I'm always so baffled by American views on censorship when it comes to Violence vs. Sex... Don't get me wrong, I love horror movies! Though I do wonder... why is it that we are exposed to such violent material and yet something as simple as nudity gets cut from films as being too graphic? Media/ Films depicting torture, war, rape, slayings, shootings are approved for PG-13 and R ratings yet if there's a sex scene with more than 5 thrusts (yea they count the thrusts) it must be edited down or will pass for NC-17... The same goes for female orgasms, full frontal male nudity, & other erotic displays... I find the message disturbing-- that explicit sex is more threatening than violence? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!
xoxx

 

[L3ggy]

I seems rather odd that sex is more of an issue than violence, it's a part of life, is it not?

 

[DJCowboy]

I seems rather odd that sex is more of an issue than violence, it's a part of life, is it not?

Aren't both? :dunno:


I really don't get it either though, it's acceptable on TV and movies to show bones breaking and amputations but once a buttcrack shows up, :eek:

 

[L3ggy]

Yes, but violence isn't a part of the life cycle, or was I taught wrong?

 

[turtle825]

Like Elizabeth Banks once said, "If I cut your throat and blood spews all over my face, it's an R-rating. But if we have a lovely time together and you spew something else on my face, it's an NC-17."

 

[kimba123]

just a guess,maybe the public view that violence is bad is false and most people privately see no problems with violence. just like sex is condemned publicly but porn is a multi-billion dollar industry and most votes tend to favor sex.

sex may get a tougher rap because violence is more accepted.

 

[DJCowboy]

Yes, but violence isn't a part of the life cycle, or was I taught wrong?

As a part of natural selection, I would have to say no. If one species wipes out another for territory (yes, I'm counting humans as species) I'd say that's a part of the natural life cycle. But that's all I'll say about it before this thread goes too far off topic

 

[xfire]

Because sex is "dirty", according to the religiously insane. Violence is "manly", according to the same douchebags.

 

[Hot Mega]

Both are censored accordingly...to prevent the exposure of it to minors. I don't see a difference in the way the two are dealt with.

I think it's a good idea that there are censorship tools available to help people who want to maintain what they consider to be their child's innocence.

If it's something you want for your child, you can't unring the bell once some irresponsible idiot seeking to impose his or her standard of beliefs on them does so over the public airwaves.

People who want to expose their children to violence or sexual/nude imagery are already relatively free to do so.

 

[Rey C.]

I'm always so baffled by American views on censorship when it comes to Violence vs. Sex... Don't get me wrong, I love horror movies! Though I do wonder... why is it that we are exposed to such violent material and yet something as simple as nudity gets cut from films as being too graphic? Media/ Films depicting torture, war, rape, slayings, shootings are approved for PG-13 and R ratings yet if there's a sex scene with more than 5 thrusts (yea they count the thrusts) it must be edited down or will pass for NC-17... The same goes for female orgasms, full frontal male nudity, & other erotic displays... I find the message disturbing-- that explicit sex is more threatening than violence? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!
xoxx

Great question! I don't have a great answer... wish that I did. But I'd say it has something to do with how we are desensitized to violence, yet we are highly sensitized to nudity, and especially sex. I don't know why, but doesn't that seem to be the case?

If you've ever watched any old I Love Lucy reruns from the 50's (other shows from that period too), you'll see that Ricky and Lucy weren't ever seen in the same bed together. It wasn't a violent show, but there were sometimes depictions of violence. And from Bugs Bunny to The Three Stooges, programming focused at children has always been full of violence. But look what happened when Janet Jackson just barely flashed some nipple at the Super Bowl a few years ago. A lot of people acted like she'd performed a ritual human sacrifice on live TV.

Like I said, I don't know what it is. Americans (more so than Europeans) seem to have a lot of hang-ups when it comes to nudity (and sex), but we tend to almost embrace violence.

BTW, there's a show that comes on History and/or History International that's called Roman Vice. I think it's being rerun this week. It's a good depiction of how the most advanced and "civilized" nation in the ancient world dealt with different aspects of sex and violence. In many ways, it seems that they were as peculiar (and hypocritical) then as we are now. Check it out. I think you'll enjoy it.

 

[Patrick_S]

I would guess that it´s mostly because the US have large conservative religious groups with a lot of influence. Sex or nudity is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to censorship in countries with small or non-existant (Sweden, for example) conservative religious groups.

 

[vodkazvictim]

:tinhat:
If you don't desensitise thepoor kids to violence then you can't persuade them to throw away their lives for the gains of big business in the middle east? :dunno:

 

[D-rock]

It's the influence of religious groups now and in the past that set it up like it is now. It doesn't always make sense, but then again a lot of things religious groups do aren't really fair.

 

[Rey C.]

:tinhat:
If you don't desensitise thepoor kids to violence then you can't persuade them to throw away their lives for the gains of big business in the middle east? :dunno:

I think you're actually onto something there. I figure that's why at one time a man (boy?) couldn't vote until he was 21, but he could be drafted and sent off to die as early as 18.

It's really not good for the interests of the state (or the oligarchy) when people start questioning things and thinking for themselves. Remember, in the film 1984... violent imagery was acceptable, but even thoughts of sex (and love) were prohibited. I'm not getting all :tinhat:, but think about it. The state can't do anything meaningful with a bunch of horny bastards. But a bunch of violent bastards? Oh yeah... they can be put to very good use. :elaugh:
True in Rome. True now. Yes?

 

[pete rose]

oh god DIRTY, DIRTY TITTY. EVIL TITTY.

 

[grower_boy]

I can't understand this myself. People (like myself) that are fans of pornography are often labelled as having "issues" whereas I can watch a highly violent UFC fight (or a movie with lots of throat slashing) and nobody really cares.

 

[Bearded_Menace]

Yes, it is a fairly strange dilemma. When I was a kid my mom let me watch all sorts of gory shit and play all sorts of gory games(Duke Nukem BABY!!). However, if i watched a chick putting a dick in her mouth, i got the shit beat out of me for it and told I was going to hell.:dunno: Maybe it is because sex ultimately leads to the creation of offspring.:dunno:

 

[abejarano12]

I think that its bullshit. As an American I find it fuck up we can show people getting hacked to pieces and not say shit, but when we show some tits and bush or a guy's cock, its wrong and indecent

 

[kimba123]

awhile back i saw a old ilsa movie and I realize the only way to show nudity in the seventies is to have trhe girl get killed in a violent way. notice the only way to see nudity is slasher flicks. not many sex movies are made without violence in the goosd old days.

 

[Automate]

This has been the most flagrant and disgusting example of a certain type of hypocricy that is utterly rampant in countries with any significant media infrastructure. Scenes of gratuituous violence are accepted as a norm everywhere, without batting an eyelid. But if you dare, DARE to even THINK of showing any sort of nudity... you'll probably end up receiving death threats for that.

The Watchmen movie comes to mind. Several very violent scenes, including a scene of attempted rape have passed through censorship without any sort of questioning, hesitation or cutting. A man gets his hands cut off by an angle grinder in that movie and another man gets hot cooking fat thrown right in his face. No camera cut-offs, not even a hint of censorship there.

The most visible souce of uproar everywhere after the release of the movie? Male frontal nudity. The visible blue dick of Dr. Manhattan. Be it due to some homophobic hysteria or religious puritanism, that's the thing that has been the most reviled aspect shown in that movie.

This sort of censorship sure brings out some violent thoughts in my head. There's apparently nothing wrong with that, since the society as a whole seems to be much more comfortable with violence than sexuality.