DescentBB

Sex and violence are the two heavy hitters when it comes to morality standards with regard to TV and movies. I have always thought it curious how in the US, depictions of violence are generally considered the lesser of these two â??evilsâ?

The big kicker with Violence is if the person watching it can distinguish between real and (presuemeably) fictitious(sp?) violence in an action flick.

Oddly enough, with porn theres a growing need to be able to distinguish real sexual experiences with fantasy ones. I read a while ago about how a lot of guys in, I think, norway or someplace, are now getting all nervous about sex because theyre worried about wether or not theyll be able to make their girls scream like in the porn flics theyve been watching. I tried to find a link, but ran out of time. Will post later if I can find it.

Anyone tell them those women were probably faking it? Most men don't make women scream like in porn movies.

I'm in agreement with Dedman on this one. It's something that I've wondered for years now. In a sense we're ass backwards from the rest of the world when it comes to sexually explicit content aired on television. If it isn't softcore porn on cinemax you're mostly watching pure innuendo on most other channels.

The violence on the other hand is moderated practically the same as far as TV is concerned. If you're not watching it on a movie channel then you won't see most of the graphic content, whether it's sexual or violent.

Movies however follow a different set of standards. It all depends on the demographic they're targeting. You can still pretty much watch whatever you want, but to me it should come down to personal responsibility. American tv isn't really that risque, not as much as some of us would like to think it is. It's still pretty conservative when you compare it to stuff aired in other countries, even as stupid as some of that stuff might be.

Heh, when it comes to sex, I'd rather have her grunt a few times than scream.

To be honest with you, I think the big problem with the media is that it inundates us with abnormality to such an extent that we accept abnormal as normal.

This goes for sex, violence, kids with piercings in odd places, or any of hundreds of other topics. I agree with Dedman that violence is probably the worst thing in the media. The depictions of violence are so visceral that there's almost always some kids outside the movie 'reliving' the violent moments of an action flick. I even do it sometimes (my poor girlfriend...I know, I know.. hehe). I feel that the violence is actually corrosive to our society.

Well Dedman, now that my son is actually getting to the age where this stuff seems like a reality to me, I get less and less sure of my own instincts. It used to be that I felt the same as you. Now, it seems just as likely that he could die from an STD as from a gun.

And, I am having these weird flashbacks to my own adolescence... How to put this delicately? Oh to hell with it, I was really, really horny. I think the only reason, that I somewhat restrained myself was that my best friend got pregnant and things got very ugly for her. So as foolish as it seems, I just don't want anything get my kids anymore sexually stimulated or willing to behave with more sexual abandon than is absolutley necessary. And, it seems like it's a little easier to convey to them that violence hurts and kills etc than it's going to be to convey that while yeah your sexual character is in some respects a very fun toy that God and Nature gave you, it is also the means by which some really serious heavy shiz can happen to you.

I am the proud father of two boys 14 and 17 and a girl 15. The Canadian public school system has an excellent sex education program and their mother has made sure that each child is fully aware of the facts about sex and pregnancy. My oldest son is very shy and not dating, my daughter is busy with other things in her life and is not dating. (Being 5'11' and built like Barbie seems to be intimidating the boys a bit too. ) My youngest is much more the normal kid and I have had to chew him out about his internet surfing. Seems all the viruses arrive when no one is home except him What I object to is the viruses not the site content per se and that is what I told him.
Violence is another subject. I have two boys yes, but I have never allowed them to hit each other and if any of their disputes get to the point of raised voices I intervene and calm them down. I do NOT believe that "Boys will be boys" and unlike other parents I know I will not tolerate physical abuse between siblings in my home. (nor have I ever struck my kids, no wait I tell a lie, I think I may have swatted a diaper in a sleep deprived moment of frustration.)
Entertainment culture now seems to be based on vengance instead of forgivness. How many movies have you seen where the hero has his family injured or killed and then wreaks destruction on their attackers. It is easily the most common theme in action movies. Children are constantly fed this line that to be a "hero" you must destroy your enemy utterly. As the children get older the violence gets more graphic but the theme is always the same. Sure plays into the current political theme doesn't it?

More absurdity took place with the movie Team America: World Cop, populated entirely with marrionettes.
Originaly rated NC17 they managed to reduce the rating to R, not by the eliminating the scenes where puppets are blown up but by shortening the scene where two anatomicly incorrect puppets bang into each other in what pretends to be a sex scene. Kind of like Ken getting it on with Barbie in your sisters doll house. I don't see what two unsexed dolls operated with strings could do that was NC17.

how interesting, i was watching a "Best of Parkinson" show today and it had an interview with Lord Richard Attenborough from back in 2000 or so.
If you don't know who this guy is: Richard Attenborough played the old white haired (Scottish?) owner of Jurrasic Park, he's also an accomplished director who has directed many top films. he's also the brother of David Attenborough, the wildlife documentary maker.

anyway in teh interview he started talking about hollywood, he said that it's very hard to get financial backers for a movie unless it promotes the "pornography of violence", or "sexual pornography". (he laughed and said he didn't mind sexual pornography much at all).

very interesting how he associated viewed violence as pornography. probably something to do with not being able to look away. i guess we have the wrong definition of pornography.

Great Post FP! Thank you. It's very reassuring to hear from other parents who have a relatively liberal and relaxed attitude toward the world and who haven't had their parenting approach backfire.

Here in the states, my sense is that a good sex education course in the schools is a rarity. My husband takes our kids to the Unitarian Church and they offer a great sex ed course. BTW Even among the ultra-open minded Unitarians there was some conflict over the detailed and non-judgemental curriculum with regard to homosexual relationships. Being a dog breeder/working dog enthusiast I, like your wife have taken most of the many opportunities provided by my critters to talk with my kids about the nuts and bolts of sexual behavior.

I couldn't agree with you more about the vengeful quality of violence in mass entertainment media. It's like there's this simplistic choice: submit/die vs conquer/kill.

Good points Roid.

It was kind of ironic when I clicked the link to the MNF commercial that Woodchip was discussing, there was a trailer for Hotel Rwanda. There's a movie about real violence. Even the brief trailer demonstrates that oftne heroism has nothing to do with personal revenge and everything to do with saving your own life and the lives of innocents.

several years back i had a running theory that all these revenge totin' gun action movies were actually sponsored by arms companys .

hmmm... *ponders theory again*

I actually just wrote an essay about this subject for English class; if you guys want, i'll post it here.

yeah please do verty, that sounds sexy and ass kicking!

What Roid said. Thanks Vert!

I'll third that motion.

[This is still a first draft; also, this essay has some pictures that although I consider them to be innocent, are probably NSFW]

[DAMNIT, for some reason my server is not letting me upload the pictures... the links are, as of now, broken]

Walking down the urban American street, it is not an uncommon sight to see a billboard of a scantily clad woman selling a product. As mainstream as these pictures have become, they are often seen as culturally inappropriate, skewed and desensitizing. On the other hand, in France, sex is even more dominant in advertisements and general culture, and it is not a problem in the slightest. American culture appears to look down upon publicizing sex â?? meanwhile, graphic images of violence on television and other media are barely frowned down upon â?? the opposite of France. Although the portrayal and acceptance of violence and sex in culture appear to be completely disconnected, they are, in fact, deeply intertwined as opposites (sex is the creation of pleasure and life, while as violence is pain and destruction).

The vilification of sex and the normalization of violence in American visual society is largely due to the co-liberation of both sex and violence. As both are portrayed more and more often, the line blurs between the two opposites, and the two are often grouped together. In American culture, sex, now associated with violence, becomes taboo, and violence, now associated with sex, becomes normal.

One of the most stark contrasts between American society and French society is what is shown on television. Surfing through American stations, very little sexual content (if any at all) is to be found â?? only certain select premium cable packages even show nudity period. Meanwhile, even on French public television, it is not uncommon to see breasts or buttocks (both male and female) (1). For instance, shampoo commercials often show fully nude women taking showers; even on the news, there have been reports on topless beaches in the summertime.

Not only are woman portrayed as naked â?? the pen1s is also commonly portrayed in French advertisement, such as the billboard of a man at the beach wearing a pen1s â??maskâ?

Verty: comma splices make baby jesus cry

Anyhow. I'm an odd case. My father trains "defensive tactics" to police internationally, from verbal diffusal to how to kill someone efficiently. My veiw of violence has largely been imparted on me in this context; it's something you should have at your disposal, and it's something you use to minimize harm (or in certain cases redirect harm). I have no compunction about slotting someone who walks into my school with a gun. It would be a shame, but not something I'd worry about. But I'd never hit someone out of anger.

Perhaps because the violence I've been exposed to as a third party through conversation with my father is so different to TV, the terribly unrealistic aspects of it leap out and make sure I never confuse it with real.

Sex on TV tends to steriotype a lot, and perplexing me people swallow this whole (no comments from the peanut gallery). I can see why this could be argued against. As for actual sex... it's just something people do. I don't understand the hoo-rah.

Nice essay Vertigo.
Be cautious on claiming that the U.S. will inevitably become like France.

Sheepdog: I have great children. I give their mother most of the credit for it. I have been fortunate that my job is well paying enough so that I could afford the ultimate in modern luxuries. A stay at home mother.

that read very well verti, hope you get good marks.

I <3 comma splices, as you may have been able to tell

"heh" at ford perfect and, many thanks to roid

Nice essay Verti. There are some glaring points I don't agree with but thats best suited for another time and place.

Here's my on the topic. Quite simply sex and violence has become dominant in movies due to writers not being able to sell their topic without it being incorporated into said movie. Before some of you get all hot and bothered about my view all you have to do is go back to the 50's and earlier and watch what was entertaining back then.
"Ozzie & Harriet" certainly didn't need the spouses writhing around in bed togeather to make it number one in it's time slot. "I love Lucy" didn't need scatalogical jokes to make this sit-com funny. "Gun Smoke" did just fine without graphic depicture of bullets rending the flesh in oh so blood splattered graphic glory.

Alfred Hitchcock could make a film like the classic "Psycho" and scare the bejeebus out of you without showing the knife slicing into the body of the showering woman, let alone showing the woman fully nude. Bob Hope & Bing Crosby or Abbott & Costello could make comedic films that are still funny today.

I shudder to think how these movies and t.v. shows would be made today by the moron writers of today handling the scripts and the producers playing one up brinkmanship to throw in whatever it takes to sell the product.

woodchip wrote:by the moron writers of today

I found your post interesting and thoughtful, at first. But no, it was just another setup, an excuse, a vehicle to carry forward another insult to those with whom you disagree.

The irony is, folks in yesteryear held themselves to a higher standard not only in terms of sex and violence, but also in terms of civility. That would tend to lump you in with today's crowd, rather than with those who went before who managed to succeed in their tasks without resorting to the crass.

On the one hand we have discipline and skill. On the other hand we have sloppiness, laziness and crudity.


- Sirian

Discipline and skill? Laugh. Woodchip is an extremeist.

Yes kuf, and so are you, just on the other side.

I think this is summed up by the fact that people want more realism. Life isn't pretty when there is violence. Sex is something we all participate in (Well, most of us). Most people don't want to be coddled. They want blunt force trauma to be entertained. Mostly because a lot of people seem to respond better to more direct images. They don't appreciate the subtleties of yesteryear. Then there are those who enjoy both direct and subtle depictions of things.

It isn't so much what is on television or in movies that influneces this. It's world events that influence this IMO. We live in different times and you can see a direct correlation between the things considered acceptable and the world events effecting the time period they were accepted in.

Sometimes it isn't as complicated as you would probably think it would be. Sometimes people just enjoy watching things get blown up or people stabbed or mutilated. It's a release, thats why video games are so appealing because of the interactivity. These mediums allow you to view or do things that you wouldn't ever do in real life no matter how many times you thought about doing so.

One of the things I didn't agree with in Vert's essay was the part in which he claims...

Vertigo 99 wrote:despite being associated together, violence in American society is on the rise, while as mainstream sex is on the decline.

I find fault with it because statistically violence in America has been on a steady DECLINE for the past decade. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm .

Just because the local and national media depict violence all the time doesn't mean that violence and violent crimes are on the rise. They use it as a selling point, nothing more.

Sex on the other hand is on a steady rise not only on the internet but in mainstream entertainment. Adult entertainment alone is setting records in sales each and every year and since the advent of the internet has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Actresses in Hollywood are being paid extra millions just to shoot scenes with full nudity and/or full nude sex scenes or just to shoot scenes with their breasts exposed onscreen.

So, as has usually been the case. Society hasn't been reflecting the trends of motion pictures or tv on average. While violence might be more prevalent on film along with sex, we as a culture are not becoming more violent and of course are still very sexual. Some of this stuff has always been around guys. Even in the 50s when people seemed more dignified that simply just wasn't the case. They just kept all their dirty deeds behind closed doors and didn't talk about it on a daily basis.

Thats where cultures differ. We're much more open about our sexuality then we were 50 years ago. Thats really the most glaring difference. We're just as violent as we've been for the passed 30 years. It just looks better on screen these days

Tyranny wrote:I think this is summed up by the fact that people want more realism. ... They don't appreciate the subtleties of yesteryear.

I disagree.

Have you ever watched the movie, "Brigadoon"? If not, try it some time. The dance scenes between the protagonist and the heroine convey "sexy" and "erotic" with a power that overwhelms simple flashes of skin common to today's filmmaking. Trust me, if you're a breathing human being, you'll appreciate those subtleties.

The problem is that yesteryear had as much bad writing as today. Many of yesterday's films aren't subtle or brilliant. They're bad. Some are shallow pretending to be clever. Some are as trapped within the boundaries of taste from their time as are today's films trapped by the need for car chases, lots of explosions, exposed breats and high body counts. Just because it's old doesn't make it good.

But go and WATCH "It's a Wonderful Life" and tell me that isn't powerful. Great writing and great acting are timeless.


Today's best films are just as good as yesterday's best films, and vice versa. It's not about subtleties or conventional wisdom, but about quality.

There will always be copycats trying to make a buck by following what they think is a can't-lose formula, and there will always be copycats who produce reams of garbage because the formula is only half the story. The rest lies in the soul of a piece of work, and you can't fake that. You can't can it. You can't package it or recycle it or copy it.

The power of Saving Private Ryan lies partly in its frank portrayals of violence. The Longest Day was rated G for goodness sake. Both have their strong points and weak points, and both are outstanding films approaching the same subject from two different angles.

One thing is that my grandfather's generation FOUGHT in those wars. They saw far more violence than was good for them, and when they came home, they did NOT want to be reminded of that. They wanted film and television to be an escape, not another in-your-face reminder. Today, all but a few of our people are insulated from that kind of real violence, so our tastes lean another way. I'm part of that. I embrace violence in movies and television IF and WHEN the story truly calls for it, when there is a point to be made. If the only point is to titillate with fear or revulsion, then count me out. There's such a thing as danger of desensitization, which is a subtle form of dehumanization. There's also such a thing as being too sensitive, such as the absurdity of Lucy and Desi having to sleep in separate twin beds (on "I Love Lucy") just to get on the air, when even in real life they were a bona fide married couple.

Extremes are bad in both directions. Extremes distort the stories in both directions. The best stories are the ones that hit home, rather than portraying phony images and concepts.


Let's talk serious sex for a moment. Porn is such drivel, such unrealistic crap, I can't bring myself to watch most of it. The moment I see the dubbing, with the ultra-fake moaning taped at a desk somewhere and dubbed in over the images, I roll my eyes and shut the crap off. I mean, wow, talk about bad. Never was an industry more slave to formula and cliche than American porn. No wonder we are hated around the world, for producing such crap in such high volume.

I get the "skip the plot, jump straight to the sex" aspect. It's porn, after all. But truly, I can't be the only guy around who wishes there was something resembling sex going on in these pictures. I mean, for god's sake, at least PRETEND that you give a care about producing a useful product. It's either so totally fake as to be uninteresting, or it's so obsessed with proving that it isn't fake that it's gross and crude and unerotic. One has to work pretty hard to get it so wrong so often for so long.

If we can't produce decent porn, I don't see how we are supposed to clean up the sex in the rest of our motion picture entertainment. This is one point on which the Europeans really are ahead of Americans. We are laughably dysfunctional as a culture when it comes to dealing with how sex is portrayed.


- Sirian

Tyranny wrote:Then there are those who enjoy both direct and subtle depictions of things.

I didn't say people were incapable of accepting subtle innuendos or being able to accept that while conflict may be part of the story, blood, guts, and gore don't have to be openly used to give off that message.

Also my use of the adult industry as an example was not an arguement on quality of content. I never said it was a great product, but it is a product that people indeed buy and was, afterall, only just one example on how "sex" does sell quite a bit these days.

Nobody said that old quality films from half a century ago don't withstand the test of time. I certainly didn't. They still do have an audience that appreciates them. Namely quite a bit who were alive during those times and then of course those of us who haven't fallen prey to missing quality when we see it.

I'm not going to debate the worth of content with you Sirian because frankly I agree with what you're saying. Even if I didn't agree I wouldn't argue with you anyways because you'd probably eat me alive

There will always be things that different people like. Just as there are horrible things on tv and in movies to some, others find those things entertaining. Which is why Hollywood will continue to make box office bombs and utter trash on television. Even the bad movies and shows have an audience at times.

I still believe though that realism is a factor and that reality does shape the content in which the majority of people want to see.

I dont think you could find anything politically extreme in anything I have written here.

edit: nevermind

lol

"Let's talk serious sex for a moment. Porn is such drivel, such unrealistic crap, I can't bring myself to watch most of it. The moment I see the dubbing, with the ultra-fake moaning taped at a desk somewhere and dubbed in over the images, I roll my eyes and shut the crap off. I mean, wow, talk about bad. Never was an industry more slave to formula and cliche than American porn. No wonder we are hated around the world, for producing such crap in such high volume." Sirian

Using the word "crap" three times in one paragraph is bad form. More effective writing would have you replace two of the "craps" with perhaps "dog do-do" or maybe "horse pucky". Anyway, in the future, do try and be less repetitious with the nouns.

I am amazed all you geeks didn't figure it out...

Basement dwelling geeks.... always the the guys that go violent and go nuts with guns...

The reason ? Easy...

- If the geeks watch sex/porn they know it is not reality (at least for them) the only way they will get laid would involve farm animals.

- however, they can get guns, so they think that is reality...

The entire problem is easily solved....
Girls, Ladies... lay a geek today - STOP THE VIOLENCE

Wow Woodchip! Talk about turning over an new leaf.

Tyranny wrote: One of the things I didn't agree with in Vert's essay was the part in which he claims...

Vertigo 99 wrote:despite being associated together, violence in American society is on the rise, while as mainstream sex is on the decline.

I find fault with it because statistically violence in America has been on a steady DECLINE for the past decade. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm .

hmm; i see what you mean, but i was talking about how the portrayal of violence is on the increase in society; not that crime rate is going up. perhaps i should rework that sentence?

I would, but it's your essay. Perhaps something along the lines of "Violence in American cinema is on the rise". I wouldn't agree with that statement either though

The 80s had quite a bit more violent movies for that time period IMO. It's just that the violence in todays movies and television is much more....detailed. Thats where the realism statement came from in my arguement. In the 80s you had the body count, in the last decade + you've seen more of the reality of when people get shot in the head or blown up. It's much more graphic, but I don't equate that with being more violent.

You don't have to agree with me of course. I also don't agree that sex in mainstream movies and television is on the decline either. Both of them have been on a steady increase or atleast have been steadily used for atleast my whole lifetime. It could be argued that sex on television is on the rise where as in motion pictures it's still used pretty much as it always has been for 30+ years.

American television has definitely been pushing the boundaries of what is socially acceptable where sex is concerned on channels such as Comedy Central or Spike tv just for example. This pretty much coming in just the last 5 or so years.

It's your essay though. Most of the time they don't care what you put in it as long as it looks good

oh & btw "biatch slaps woody upside the head". Take your Sirian bashing to PM or something. Sort it out. You're not adding anything to the conversation by making petty jabs at someone based on arguements in other threads.

Tyranny wrote: It's your essay though. Most of the time they don't care what you put in it as long as it looks good

it's frightening how true this is, lol

college rox

woodchip wrote:Using the word "crap" three times in one paragraph is bad form.

Who's feeding you this crap?

woodchip wrote:More effective writing would have you replace two of the "craps" with perhaps "dog do-do" or maybe "horse pucky".

What a load of crap.

woodchip wrote:Anyway, in the future, do try and be less repetitious with the nouns.

Effective writing keeps attention focused on the topic, not on the words. What you suggest would read like crap.


Woops, sorry. I failed to combine those into one paragraph. Here, let's try again:

Bad Form wrote:What a load of doggy-do. Who's feeding you these piles of dung? Effective writing keeps attention focused on the topic, not on the words. What you suggest would read like feces.

- Sirian

Sex and violence?

Yes please, and no thank you!

I think I speak for all of us on this.

Mobius wrote:Sex and violence?

Yes please, and no thank you!

I think I speak for all of us on this.

I'd rather have it the other way, at least in movies/TV.

"Let's talk serious sex for a moment. Porn is such drivel, such unrealistic crap, I can't bring myself to watch most of it. The moment I see the dubbing, with the ultra-fake moaning taped at a desk somewhere and dubbed in over the images, I roll my eyes and shut the whole stinking mess off. I mean, wow, talk about bad. Never was an industry more slave to formula and cliche than American porn. No wonder we are hated around the world, for producing such low quality voyeurism in such high volume." Sirian re-dubbed

See how much better it sings?

for all those curious, the pictures that go along with my essay work now.

While I understand that full nudity is used in French marketing, your example marked [1] doesn't exceed any boundaries that the US doesn't already use.

We see the same stuff in lingerie adds, most often used by Victoria Secret, on television, magazines or on billboards here in the states. Course, being that it is a school project you probably couldn't use a more accurate example. I don't know though, you used an add with a man portraying a penii, so...who knows

On french marketing, there was an amusing ad I saw in the tube in London last time I was there.

Very sexy young lady sitting fully nude in the tub. Covering up the breasts was a little text box that said something to the effect of "if this was France, this wouldn't be here". I laughed. It was advertising going to france for a day-away I guess.