It seems in today's world, people would rather expose kids to murder than sex. Just look at movie ratings. People sawing their own legs off (Saw) can get an R rating, but if you show two puppets having sex, it gets an NC-17 rating (Team America: World Police). Also, look at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It got little protest until you could see someone having sex in it. Then it has major politicians trying to get it banned, and only then does it get an Adults Only rating. Not when you can cut people's heads off with chainsaws, not when you can kill cops, but when you can have sex with your girlfriend. Personally, I'd rather have a five year old watch pornos all day than have them watch people being murdered and beaten.

So, what's a bigger issue? Violence, or sex?

Well if I had no choice but to choose between violence and sex I'd choose sex-
-yes sex is a natural part of life but in ways... protected, with someone you love over 16...
-violence has no current place in our lives but these two are too often blended together so we cannot tell the difference between them or to choose one or the other.
Violence is a terrible thing that may affect us all at some part of our lives. Its disgusting, dirty, horrible, scary, and animal-like.
To continue to thrive in this planet we must balance these two elements to their original placing and try to eradicate violence from our lives. it is a stain upon the shirt of human beings!!!

quote:

Originally posted by sunsprite1117:
I think watching violence is worse than sex. Sex is a natural part of life, and without it none of us would be alive. Violence, though, sucks. When sex in movies makes the rating higher, is that because of the nudity or the actual sex?

I agree on this. Sex is part of life, whereas killing each other is not. I think its rated so high because of the sex it self. But I could be wrong there.

I don't know, but doesn't violence often lead to sex and vice versa? For instance, after you have a fight, don't you "kiss and make up"? And rape(which is sex without permission) often ends up with the victim being killed? I think the world would be better off without violence and pornos(pornos are sick at that.) But..would you rather have a five year old look at naked pictures of other 5 year olds? Will this five year old grow up to be a pervert in society raping women(or men) because he thinks it's all right? It's better than murder, I'm sure.. I don't know(sorry for the sarcasm earlier, just getting my emotions out.) It's a good question..

I think were all forgetting that sex has inextricable aspects of violence to it.
Two-fold:
1. Pornography often displays aggressive sexual behavior as part of a "normal" sexual experience.
2. Unprotected sex carries a mulitude of risks. Most of these risks are abstracted in the sense that the consequences are not immediately felt or seen.

HIV, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, rape... those are all directly related to sex. And Dr. Strangelove is right, how many average teens are engaging in un-safe sexual practices?


Not that one is worse than the other, but there are extensive factors to consider; this is not a simple black and white issue.

If by the age of 10 kids cannot distinguish the difference between works of fiction and reality then it is a sad situation.

Honestly, how do people explain things like that? "I am 17 years old and I play this game where you steal cars to score points and that made me steal cars, too."

Yeah, kids are easily influenced but it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kid is not a moron.

Sex might be a bigger issue because movies like Saw are heavily exaggerated--even a kid can tell that. Like someone has said, it is easier to go out and have sex than cut a person's limb off. Also because sex scenes are always passionate and are portrayed as good things, they simply have more appeal. They don't show people getting STD's, or the lady getting pregnant, only the ecstasy and the good feeling of the act.

I would rather my children watch neither, but if I had to choose between alot of violence, and alot of sex, I would probably choose sex. I agree that sex is a natural part of life. Cutting someones head of is not. We, as a general society, have been so over-exposed to violence, that we are becoming numb to it.

Another point, The parents that are sueing these companies for making their teens violent: I understand letting your child purchase a teen rated video game, but where are they when the teens are PLAYING it? In my oppinion, if parents don't trust ratings, they should check out what their children are watch/playing. If tey don't, then they really shouldn't have in grounds in a lawsuit.

grand theft auto did have a huge fight against it before that scene was found. people were trying to get it banned when teens who became violent blamed their violent nature on too many hours of playing the game. but that's not the issue here. it's not ok to have a child watch either and i personally wouldn't rather have my child watch either one. if a person is exposed to alot of sex as a child they may develop some sexually violent characteristics when they get older. many rapists were exposed to a very sexual environment as a child. on the flip side, if a chld is exposed to alot of violence, they may be more agressive/violent when they get older. they may be more heartless in causing physical harm to others or even themselves.

I think watching violence is worse than sex. Sex is a natural part of life, and without it none of us would be alive. Violence, though, sucks. When sex in movies makes the rating higher, is that because of the nudity or the actual sex?

im with Darthrevan on this 1.

quote:

im just saying: if your older it dosnt really matter what you watch because i hope your not stuupid enuff to repeat wut there doing, but young kids shouldnt watch violent stuuf cuz there most likely to repeat wut there doing.

Then the majority of teens worlwide are completely stupid, considering pop culture.

It isn't about how smart you are to resist a cultural norm that's pounded into you often enough to stick. Stupidity is completely seperate from repetition in daily life.

And by "older", I assume you mean the upper half of the teenage years, like from 16-19. Even then is a crucial time of development, when teens often do/watch/think about whatever most others are, be what it may.

quote:

i've watched violent movies like saw and played video games like San Andreas, and that has never made me want to go out and kill somebody.

Of course not, but you're likely more exposed to that kind of violence than someone who hasn't seen those images countless times. It's impossible to predict where frequent exposure to violence or sex will lead under certain circumstances, hence movie and video game ratings.

I think that it depends on the influence on people of different ages. I mean, i've watched violent movies like saw and played video games like San Andreas, and that has never made me want to go out and kill somebody. And sex, on the other hand, well id rather have a 5 yr. old watch porn 6 hours straight than watch a movie where there is murderers cutting ppls arms and legs and w/e else off. im just saying: if your older it dosnt really matter what you watch because i hope your not stuupid enuff to repeat wut there doing, but young kids shouldnt watch violent stuuf cuz there most likely to repeat wut there doing.

Neither issue is bigger. The biggest issue are the parents who allow their kids to watch Saw, get their hands on sexual movies, or play games like GTA: San Andreas. I don't think they should be banned (I think they should be rated, but never censored.) I think the parents should be held completely responsible for any kid between the ages of 1-17 who get their hands on content the parents think is questionable.

There are WAY too many opportunities for parents to censor their kids for this to be an issue. Don't know what the video games ratings mean? Fucking READ. Don't want them watching MTV (God forbid)? Block it. Don't want them surfing porno websites? Go online and block 'em. There are so many Help buttons for parents trying to guard their kids, but they never push them. And that's their own fault.

Moviegoers want to see violence as well as sex. One's restrictions outweighs the other as sex is free and has no restrictions. But violent crime is not usually free (as weapons are needed) and immediately affects more than two people. There are plenty of roadblocks to mass violence, while sex is usually so much more intriguing and simple. It is not illegal for teens to have sex, but it is illegal for them to blow things up.

Plus, teens naturally lean more towards having sex than going out to hurt people.

There's a greater tendency of teen sex than teen violence, and making it harder for teens to see it in movies is one way to hopefully defer it a bit.

I don't know, I watch a lot of violent TV shows and movies but they've never made me want to go out and blow something up. Quite the contrary, watching a few war movies when I was younger sort of turned me into a pacifist. Now I have Hollywood-fabricated images of what war looks like to freak me out a bit more than it already did. Yay.
I think for a lot of kids, learning about sex is sort of a loss of innocence thing and I can see why parents would want to delay it by putting age restrictions on sexual content.

You know whats appaling... I think Lewis Black had it right... a titty is not disturbing or disgusting... sending a message to your kid that it is, is what is really disturbing.

I think these two issues are actually on the same level,but it's just different on each side of the country. Like in some places violence is a bigger problem and in another part the bigger problem is sex. However,I just want to say that in a lot of places,there is sex education but sometimes teens just feel like they're ready have sex.I'm not blaming anybody,though.

Well think of it this way: We have plenty of laws, law enforcement, and general dicouragement in going out and committing mass violence.
On the other side, there is little stopping, or discouraging, kids from having sex.
Therefore, it's more likely that kids will be influeced by depictions of sex rather than depictions of violence.

And I hear a LOT more stories of 11 year olds giving out blowjobs than I do about 11 year olds shooting and murdering people. Sex is obviously the bigger issue. But I think that both need to have age restrictions, and stuff like SAW II should be NC-17.

That would have the added benefit of keeping moronic teenagers from seeing it and thinking it's the best horror movie ever when it's really just a highly derivative and ultimately mediocre film.