Why is it that violence is considered more acceptable than sex?

No really, I'm asking the question.

In all my years of Internet browsing, You Tube videos watching and all that stuff, I noticed that, if sex scenes, even not-so-explicit ones, are always flagged as age-inappropriate, violence, torture, scenes of horror and such are not.

Why is that? Is it really THAT much better to watch a guy tearing another guy in half and then impaling a woman with a pike rather than people making love or kissing each other?

Don't get me wrong, I DO understand that extreme porn and the like can be very damaging for a child's psyche. But since when are decapitations, torture scenes, massacres and all that stuff NOT damaging?

What's your take on this? Why is it better for the media to show people killing each other than people making love to one another?

The more fun it is, the more wrong it is.

Americanisation of the Internet is why.

I've always wondered this myself. I think it's because it's easier to explain and children are less likely to want to do it. Like if someone's child sees, say, some guy getting stabbed or shot, you can tell them that they shouldn't do that because that's bad. Unless they're a sociopath, they probably won't enjoy killing people. But with sex, you could say that them seeing that will make them want to do it, because it is a natural thing. IDK though.

I think its because underage viewers can attempt to imitate sexual acts while most of the violent stuff can't be replicated.

I disagree there. Ask anyone who has to deal with small kids and they can tell horror stories, such as "friendly geeting in form of punch to the balls" which my cousins kids like to do...

Because sex is an intimate and private matter to most. Not something one is supposed to be flaunting and not something one is supposed to be intruding upon, either. It's not so much that 'sex is wrong' it's more that 'sex is not for public display'.

How one goes from this notion to the hysteria surrounding 'nipple-slips' to name but one thing... I have no clue.

But it's odd that violence is considered more appropriate for public display.

The American media-rating systems have the same history.

I don't understand it either.

I don't know if it's odd, I think it just shows that humans never made a habit of hiding their violence like they'd do sex. On top of that; hidden violence, I think, does more harm.

Not all violence is considered appropriate, or treated blithely. We can brush off exaggerated and impersonal violence, but scenes of intentional brutality are regarded differently by the censors and viewers alike.

That being said, as much as I don't mind sex and sexuality in movies, I do think viewers should be forewarned. I don't particularly want to see anything arousing while at the movies with my parents, for one.

Hostel is particularly weird, given that it got an R rating rather than an NC-17 despite showing sexualized violence. (Then again, there was a debate in the UK over whether it was bannable as porn . . .)

The answer is simple: in live action media, if you show a character being killed, the actor playing them is not actually being killed, and the red stuff leaking out of them isn't real blood; if you show a character exposing their breasts, butt, or genitals, however, odds are the actor playing them is actually exposing their Real Life naughty bits. That extra bit of realism matters; notice how cartoons (even children's cartoons) are often able to get away with depicting characters' bare asses.

Besides, it all depends on what level of sex and what level of violence you see as being equivalent. Suppose you depict someone being impaled on a large spike; some would argue that, unless you show gallons of blood and graphically detailed intestines spilling out of the victim's body, it's the equivalent of a sex scene where you don't actually get to see the characters' private parts.

Sex is real and depicts acts that stimulate the brain in a totally different fashion than violence. Most of the violence in media is exaggerated or totally unrealistic, and typically, doesn't reveal anything private. Anything that goes past these boundaries, clearly going for a sense of realism, is considered profane.

Because we come from a culture where sex and sexuality has been historically demonized as a satanic, corrupting influence on "virtuous men and women". Sexual openness has only very recently become acceptable, so we are still shaking off the influences of all the generations before us who were raised to conform to one sexual standard. Violence, on the other hand, has only recently become frowned upon; we have a history of glorifying war, revenge, and duels to the death as valorous, noble, courageous, and manly. Throughout history, we've looked at violence as a method and tool of extending the right to power over others, and it's certainly been hardwired (or socially conditioned, depending on your perspective) into all of us since the early days of human civilization to use it in order to pursue our goals.

edited 11th Nov '11 7:29:54 PM by tropetown

You could also make the point that the pro-gun forces in the S Tates probaly facilitate gun usage in media being protrayed more positively.

That makes sense. American culture is considerably more gun-friendly than many other Western countries, so it would make sense that a greater acceptance of violence would go hand-in-hand with that.

Well there seems to be a consensus that sex is "more real" than violence.

Fine. But if the piece is a historical work that depicts acts that actually happened, actual things that were done to people (executions, actual torture, burning at the stake etc...) don't you think that it should AT LEAST be mentioned that this may not be suitable for certain people?

What I mean by that is that there ain't no such as "over-the-top" violence in current productions. All scenes of violence in horror films nowadays, unless they involve supernatural creatures, are depicted extremely realistically.

And we still say that it's still better for kids to watch this as opposed to a sex scene.

There is also the idea that kids might not want to re-enact violence, while they might want to re-enact sex. Well I'm sorry but this is false: kids will re-enact anything they see if they see it young enough. If they see violence at home, they themselves become violent. If they see violence on screen, they just might include these elements in their playtime.

What I mean is that violence and death fascinate kids, and very often people in general, just as much as sex and imprint themselves just as easily on their minds.

Yet, we still seem to find it more acceptable to revel in violence and death than to revel in sex.

Well, Moral Guardians are a personal pet peeve of mine, so I wouldn't push for greater regulation of either sex or violence. That said, attitudes toward violence are a more comfortable topic for parents to discuss with their children, so it's easier to condition them to conform to society's standards with regards to that. There are also laws in place that restrict violence in society, so the consequences for acting on violent impulses may also serve as a deterrent in many cases. To put it simply, society is set up in a way to control a child's attitude towards violence from a very young age, and so, television will have much less of an effect on how the child will see violence as an adult.

Sex, on the other hand, is still seen as something somewhat taboo, although this attitude is changing. Parents are less likely to want to discuss sexual mores with their children; many are dreading the day they have to give their kids "The Talk", and so, keep their views on sex and sexuality from their children. Adding to that, sexuality is a far more individually based perspective than violence is, partly because our society no longer has an explicit sexual code, and partly because sex does not have a directly negative effect on society, as violence does, so there is far less need to regulate and try to control it. With the unwillingness to discuss sexuality, coupled with the individual nature of sexual philosophies, a child has fewer places to turn to in order to develop their sexuality. What that ends up meaning, is that the places that children can learn about sexuality are going to have a far bigger influence on the development on the kid's views on the whole thing. If they're at an age before they're emotionally ready to handle the concept, too much exposure to sex can lead to them developing unhealthy attitudes at a very young age, and these can take years of therapy to deprogram out of them.

Of course, imposing one's beliefs on sexuality isn't the right way to go, either (that's more or less what too much sexual exposure does); what needs to be done is for society to expose children to it in a much more institutionalized way. This would mean:

• Radical change in parental attitudes. Parents aren't afraid to tell their kids why they think murder is wrong, but are more hesitant to explain why rape is. Why is this? Learn to stop treating sex like a loaded grenade, and your kids will be a lot healthier for it.

• A change in the attitude towards children's programming. Actually, this is something I think they used to handle perfectly well, before Moral Guardians got their grubby little paws all over the issue. Cartoons weren't racy, but they weren't afraid to slip in innocent sexual humor here and there, which did absolutely no harm, and exposed kids in a safer way. Now, there seems to be an "all-or-nothing" belief that's infecting a good amount of programming today. Either it's crammed full of sex and Dead Baby Comedy (too adult), or it can't have anything but the most subtle innuendo (too overprotective).

• An acceptance of different sexual practices and preferences (as long as these do not cause non-consensual harm to others). This is an area where we're getting better, but unfortunately, those who are at the top of Western culture belong to a different age, where sexual conformity was the norm. I don't think that it's necessary to teach kids about all the various fetishes and practices out there, but being comfortable with different ways of sexual expression, and letting them know there are sexual options they may or may not consider will go a long way toward removing the stigma surrounding sexuality as a whole.

• Sexual education. This is a big one; the only problem that might come about because of this is that it could easily become a soapbox for teachers, schools, and governments to impose their particular views on sexuality, which may or may not be harmful to the children. To combat this, they should teach: sexual openness, sexual freedom, and perhaps allow and encourage them to express their own views on the matter. Naturally, proper education on the specific risks that come with sex, and preventative methods should be a big focus here, too. (As you can see, I am very much an Ethical Slut.)

Let me ask, which do would you be more upset about a child doing: pulling their shorts down for a second to show someone their butt, or pulling a bandage off for a second to show someone their scraped knee?

The first, but would you be more upset about that, or a child deciding to scrape someone else's knee? Yes, I know how dumb that is, but bear with me.

edited 12th Nov '11 1:00:33 AM by tropetown

Committing violent acts is a bigger no-no than committing sexual acts, yes. But just witnessing them is a different story.

Let's say you need surgery, and you have almost enough money to pay for it. To make up that last little bit, you could have the surgery done at a teaching hospital; the cost will be lower, but you'll have to agree that a bunch of spectators (mostly med students, but not all) will be allowed to watch as you're cut open and the surgeon pokes around in your insides. Or you could go to a non-teaching hospital where only the necessary personnel will see the surgery performed; this will cost more, and the only way you can earn the extra money you need is to star in a pornographic video. Which do you choose?

edited 12th Nov '11 1:13:56 AM by RavenWilder

Depends on the type of porn video, but the only reason I'd go with the teaching college would be because of its lower cost (I'm assuming that the lower cost does not translate into lower quality service). Let's just say that sex in front of an audience doesn't really bother me, and leave it at that.

edited 12th Nov '11 1:31:31 AM by tropetown

Why is TV Tropes having such a hard problem all of a sudden realizing kids don't understand sex like us grown adults do?

Explicit sexuality is a thing that can't really be "warmed up" into understanding. Put it like this: you're a kid, and you start off, let's say, watching cartoons. You see Tom & Jerry running into objects, comically getting injured. Then you move to Justice League, where people get injured and punched around and it's not usually played for laughs, but nothing too serious. Then maybe you evolve into Dragon Ball Z or something, where maybe you start to see more blood and anger and pain. Move on to a more mature action movie where ("real") people are shot or die on screen, then move into gorier films, and finally the worst you'll probably have to see is a gorey thriller movie.

But sex is different. You can't just go from "mommy and daddy love each other" to "holding hands is cute" to "kissing is climactic" to "wait, I have a dongle thing, and she has a hole?" It doesn't work like that. Humans grasp violence and sexuality in different means. To compare the two "evolutionary scales," one is introduced to "violence" at an early age, and they slowly take small hints of it to have a better immunity to it. However, sexuality is different. As kids, we're shown "romance," not sexuality. We understand people love each other, and that it's typically two people of opposite genders, and we also see ways they show their romance publicly. Holding hands, kissing, etc. Sex is just a totally different level. We're not shown sex at an early age - there's no way to depict sex in "lighter" terms, like violence can. The "lightest" form of sex we see as kids is kissing, but that's not sex. It's romance. As kids we decipher this as a totally different subject.

There's a logical reason why this is so and it's not because we're just a bunch of prudes.

Which doesn't explain why it's also seen as a taboo for adults.