George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There are still elements of decency and morality that should be adherred to, with us being a civilized species and such.
mixedmedia said:Personally, I am much more concerned with gratuitous violence in films than I am about sex. Not that I object to graphic violence when appropriate in its context, but many movies are made now that center around the exploitation of violence for its own provocative effect. These movies bother me very much. Like I just saw last night that they've remade The Hills Have Eyes.......wonderful. :roll:
I am not in the least afraid that simulated sex or sexual references would, in some way, negatively impact my kids. Gratuitous violence, on the other hand, I am very wary of when it comes to its possible effect on young minds. One experience is largely positive and happy, the other engenders largely negative feelings like terror and revulsion. It's no contest.
George_Washington said:When I mentioned sex, I was referring to perverted sex. I don't see how someone could argue that we should graphically show child molestation, for example, and that would be just dandy for society. Media, I'm sure you wouldn't sit your kids down to watch this. So there are, in fact, limits to what kind of sex we should publically portray.
I think violence to a certain extent is simply neccessary in a film. I can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it. A great set of films with a lot of violence in them are the Kill Bill movies. Violence is absolutely neccessary in predicting war movies, look at Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. I think it was good that Spielberg made it realistic because then I think it would actually detract people from committing crimes. I mean look at Japan, it's one of the safest countries in the world and they put massive amounts of violence in their cartoons.
I would probably say that only a small amount of sex is actually, needed in a film for it to be a box office hit. Like Titanic, for example. Titanic had much more violence in it than sex and it was the top grossing film of all time. But whereas more violence is usually neccessary in order to make a film realistic and enjoyable.
I do admit there is probably a limit to how much violence we should show too but I just not as much so as with sex.
mixedmedia said:I am not in the least afraid that simulated sex or sexual references would, in some way, negatively impact my kids.
ngdawg said:I think this country is totally ***-backwards in its views on sex and violence.
Video games, cartoons, movies, tv all have more violence than could possibly happen in real life and it's 99% gratuitous, over the top and is so permeating that kids become desensitized to it. But have a breast fall out at the Super Bowl halftime show....:roll: We're a joke in this regard and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
The official claim was a 'wardrobe' malfunction in that when Timberlake ripped her shirt, he also grabbed her bra and ripped that as well, exposing her for about an nth of a second....the song was dumb, considering...guess it's ok to sing about getting naked, but DOING it is simply horrid!!! :roll:talloulou said:I didn't see the whole Janet Jackson thing. Did her breast fall out accidentally or was it exposed after Justin Timberlake ripped her shirt...which was part of the show? It makes a difference in my mind cause an accident where your shirt slips and your breast shows is an accident. However a guy singing he will have you naked by the end of this song and then ripping your shirt is totally different and sends a weird message.
ngdawg said:The official claim was a 'wardrobe' malfunction in that when Timberlake ripped her shirt, he also grabbed her bra and ripped that as well, exposing her for about an nth of a second....the song was dumb, considering...guess it's ok to sing about getting naked, but DOING it is simply horrid!!! :roll:
Which brings me to another hypocritical point in this neo-victorian society-why is it ok to sing about 'shakin yo' ***', lovin 'big butts', 'making her cum all night long', and getting naked, but a female breast gets you fined? The videos shown on tv
make women nothing more that booty-shaking, 5-inch heel-wearing bimbos any time day or night and that's ok. Show a couple, any couple, gay or straight, having sex and suddenly we have to blindfold the kids.....unless they're beating each other senseless, then it's CSI or something.....
George_Washington said:What do you think? Can sex in films and television go too far?
I think they can, actually. I think there's a certain line people shouldn't cross. I think sex can be done creatively and erotically in the sense that is done tastefully. But I do think that people can go way too far and often do nowadays. It's easy to just say, "Well, it's freedom of speech." Or, "It's art!" But the theory that anything can be portrayed as long as it is done artistically is stupid. There are still elements of decency and morality that should be adherred to, with us being a civilized species and such.
Two films that come to mind are, "Dangerous Beauty" and "Meet Joe Black." I think the sex scenes in those films were very erotic and well done.
But a lot of sex in movies and television nowadays is just gross and offensive, such as South Park. I like South Park for the most part but a lot of times they just go too far and do things that are simply in poor taste. It's odd how in modern society we seem to laugh at pretty much anything and think that are no longer any standards of decency.
i think you need to watch some nicer films!...lolI can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it.
i think you need to watch some nicer films!..lolI can't think of one film that didn't have at least some violence in it.
mixedmedia said:You know what, George? I don't think you 'splain yourself too good in your opening posts.
And you tell me how two hours of watching a family terrorized and brutalized is somehow more morally acceptable than the portrayal of child molestation? How is someone being hacked to pieces with a sword somehow less perverted than any form of sex?
I disagree with your thesis.
dragonslayer said:Strangely enough, I have to agree with u. I never watch South Park or many movies. they are to gross. Yet it is true about Freedom of Speech, and the constitution. We need to protect the rights of the least against the majority. that is freedom of speech.
ngdawg said:I think this country is totally ***-backwards in its views on sex and violence.
Video games, cartoons, movies, tv all have more violence than could possibly happen in real life and it's 99% gratuitous, over the top and is so permeating that kids become desensitized to it. But have a breast fall out at the Super Bowl halftime show....:roll: We're a joke in this regard and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
George_Washington said:...Would seem to indicate that you would think it would be ok to show virtually any kind of sex to your kids. I mean just think of all the forms of sex that could be, "simulated" and shown to children. I would say that somebody being, "hacked to death with a sword" would be much less damaging to a child depending on how it was portrayed and if it had proper context.
Plus, it would depend on how realistic it was, how much blood was shown, etc. But the fact remains that historically, violence has been more shown in films than sex so perhaps sex is the more disturbing to children.
And your assertion that molestation would be less shocking than violence is really an oxymoron because molestation is violence in itself. The vast majority of psychologists agree that rape isn't about sex, it's about hatred, aka violence. So it really is just as much violence as it is sex, which only adds to the argument that it would be inappropriate for kids to view.
I think a good example of films with sword related, "violence" are Highlander, Gladiator, and Braveheart. I don't think the violence in these films would harm children because the films themselves were very well done and had great substance. I think a film where someone raped a child would be much, much more damaging to a kid. A lot of young boys like to play with toy weapons and such. I know I did as a child. But what young boy is going to want to watch something so sick as the former mentioned? Disgusting.
George_Washington said:The thing is, nobody wants to admit that we have problems in this regard. But the fact is, we've become so desensitized to so much, it makes you wonder. What's next? How much more is the envelope going to be pushed? When are we going to say enough is enough? Or are we going to say that anything goes, that it's all just freedom of speech?
I remember that Alexander Hamilton once wrote that in order to maintain a civilized society, freedom of speech should never be taken to an infinite value. In fact, that was his basis for not including in the Bill of Rights to begin with. He also said that it would only ultimately lead to them violating the rights of others, such as the example of a man yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It makes you wonder if he had, in fact, been correct. But it really wasn't just Hamilton, either. There have been many reputable scholars that have also wrote about the dangers of freedom of speech taken to the extreme.
I personally think that if something is so extremely perverted and demented, we shouldn't just bury our heads in the sand and say it's freedom of speech. We should look at the person and wonder if the creator of this material is really in his right mind or if he is mentally ill.
Another good topic to be discussed in this thread is: When can a filmmaker cross the line and potray things that only a mentally ill person would portray? I would think that any reputable psychiatrist would certainly suggest that certain forms of expression in their most extreme forms could certainly indicate a sign of mental illness or kind of mental condition.
mixedmedia said:You tell me which movies coming out of Hollywood are portraying sex so vile and perverted that they would be more traumatizing to a child than the vile and perverted violence that is already coming out of it?
Sorry George but that is a very silly assumption. Do you really suppose that Hollywood makes choices on content based on what would be disturbing to children? Give me a break. Fact is, extreme violence is much more acceptable than sex, thus Hollywood produces accordingly. I find this a backwards and disturbing reality in itself. Graphic, realistic ****ing is more disturbing than graphic, realistic murder. Do you ever think about it that way?
Yes, I believe that seeing a movie that has child molestation in it SHOULD be less shocking than seeing someone's head chopped off. But that's just me, I guess.
Well, I was thinking of the film Kill Bill.
Let me just add that I am not for film censorship. I just see the obvious hypocrisy that exists in America as regards the subjects of sex and violence.
mixedmedia said:And all this concern extends only to the portrayal of sex? I just don't understand it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?