TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

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

Go To

CDRW Since: May, 2016
#76: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:14:51 PM

Responding to [citation needed] with more claims unbacked by citations does not increase your reputation as a credible source.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#77: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:14:58 PM

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.htm

[up] Give me half an hour Ill recolect the bibliography needed.

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441

edited 12th Nov '11 12:16:38 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#78: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:15:36 PM

That'sbecause the prisoners in china are under-reported. Especially the ones in LABOR CAMPS.

I'm baaaaaaack
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#79: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:17:19 PM

Anyways... even then they imprisoned a far far lower amount of their population per capita than we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#cite_note-bjstrends-0

edited 12th Nov '11 12:36:17 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#80: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:19:15 PM

That's because the people are scared shitless of their government, alot of people here don't respect the law.

I'm baaaaaaack
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#81: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:20:56 PM

[up] rationalise it however you want.

Aditional sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#82: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:22:44 PM

...I gave valid reasoning. Thats not "rationaliseing"

I'm baaaaaaack
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#83: Nov 12th 2011 at 12:26:14 PM

[up]the conjugation of that verb is rationalising.

But anyways Your argument goes that, because the US is less harsh then there is more crime committed and thus more people are imprisoned.

This is on itself not a sound logical conclusion considering how fucking scary american jails are, and that violations are being punished thus the system is harsh.

Not to say that China isnt a very violent country. Of course... China is barely a second world country if not a 3rd world country while the U.S is fully developed.

[1]

edited 12th Nov '11 12:32:07 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Alrune Swirl Swirl Red Whirl from Your Bed Since: Jan, 2001
Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
#84: Nov 12th 2011 at 1:30:00 PM

@ Joesolo: No sorry it's not a question of being "scared shitless" of their government, it's a question of culture.

The Chinese don't take kindly to indiscipline and disrespect to one's superior or to one's elders. In the West, primarily in the US, the creed is: "you gain respect by disrespecting somebody else". Example? WWE, that is all.

And now since I'm pretty sure everybody will call me un-American, I'll just level the field by saying that in no way do I believe my country is better than the US, not even culturally speaking, not in anything. I just give the point of view of an outsider on what I see from the US culture.

And to get back on track, strangely, Europeans are not necessarily having a problem with sex or violence, that's pretty much why Euroshlock exist. Be it nudity, graphic death or anything such, Europeans don't really care about being inappropriate in either field.

The Japanese are also strangely big on war and violence in their culture or in Anime but somehow, their criminality rate is lower than in any other part of the first world. Also, their animés are usually very sexual in a way or another (except Male Frontal Nudity) with Torture Porn and Gorn very present, as well as visible child brutality, something that is rarely featured in Western society.

Strange eh? The Japanese are still considered very polite and proper people when they travel abroad...

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#85: Nov 12th 2011 at 2:13:31 PM

I didn't say fear was necessary, I'm saying that was part of the reason. Sure, culture helps, but when you could be put in a labor camp for a crime, that helps keep you straight. It's wrong, and I never said we should do that.

EDIT- the system isn't that harsh, the people in the system however...

[up] That's only some people. The internet needs to realise "Americas" are as diverse as hell. I think disrespect is wrong unless someone desrves it(usually by being disrespectful themselves, or just generally being a dick.) Also, I don't like WWE. Waste of time and money IMO.

edited 12th Nov '11 2:17:45 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#86: Nov 12th 2011 at 2:16:05 PM

Sex and violence are treated differently because they're qualitatively different.

Sex is good, but dangerously powerful (literally, taboo). I know of no society where couples copulate in public rather than retreating to a secluded place.

Violence is bad, but has occurred in public as long as there's been homicide.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#87: Nov 12th 2011 at 3:12:18 PM

know of no society where couples copulate in public rather than retreating to a secluded place

It's a bilogical thing, actually. I have a Jared Diamond book to read on this subject.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#88: Nov 12th 2011 at 4:00:01 PM

Someone could also say that a couple of people have a platonic relationship, or a familial relationship, or a teacher/student relationship, or a bitter rivals relationship. I don't see the romantic implication there.

Because a sexual relationship is nothing out of the ordinary. If I told you two people had a sexual relationship, it would not be a big deal, merely an "oh, I didn't know they were dating". Unless, of course, they were closely related, or formerly closeted, or had an otherwise unorthodox partnership. A violent relationship, on the other hand, implies that something is wrong, because violence is not normally a part of a healthy interaction between two people.

Biologically, sex is for reproduction. Scientifically, many use it for pleasure, but at times it is used to inflict pain and torment, and the only deffenate use for it is the creation of a child, which is always a possiblity when engaging in coitus.

Biologically, your mouth is used to chew and swallow food for digestion. Is it wrong, then, to chew a piece of gum without swallowing it? Is it wrong to use your mouth to hold on to something when your hands are full? Why is it that, when someone uses any other body part however they want without harming others, it's perfectly fine, but it's suddenly "misuse" when it becomes about people's genitalia?

To use yet another comparison, when you donate blood the fluid is drawn out of your body by someone else, put in a clear bag, and all this is often done in a large, open room with lots of people around. When you donate sperm, you draw the fluid out of your body by yourself, you put it in an opaque container, and you do it alone with plenty of privacy. Or is that done differently in other countries?

You've made a similar comparison before, and I already made my point concerning it. For the record, I will quote myself once again.

I agree with the fact that sex (which only affects a willing participant) is more private and individual than murder (which affects an unwilling participant, and all the people that person was close to), but I don't think that this translates into a complete moratorium on sexuality as a whole.

Now, when I say "complete moratorium on sexuality as a whole", I don't mean that every single subject that has to do with the topic is taboo. What I do mean, however, is that referring to the lighter aspects as such, for some reason, automatically makes the subjects heavier. It would be as if I referred to a fist fight, or beating with someone with a crowbar as "violence", and that would suddenly make discussing those actions A Bad Thing.

edited 12th Nov '11 10:27:58 PM by tropetown

kashchei Since: May, 2010
#89: Nov 12th 2011 at 10:19:15 PM

Biologically, your mouth is used to chew and swallow food for digestion. Is it wrong, then, to chew a piece of gum without swallowing it? Is it wrong to use your mouth to hold on to something when your hands are full? Why is it that, when someone uses any other body part however they want without harming others, it's perfectly fine, but it's suddenly "misuse" when it becomes about people's genitalia?

Because they want to rationalize not getting any.

edited 12th Nov '11 10:22:06 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
ekuseruekuseru 名無しさん from Australia Since: Oct, 2009
名無しさん
#90: Nov 13th 2011 at 12:46:15 AM

@Qeise (p.2)

Um, yeah? Boxing? Other martial arts? Glorification of historical warriors and soldiers? How excited the crowd gets when there's an all-in at a football game? How people gather around a schoolyard- or bar-fight? How we have wars going on every day?

Violence is very much acceptable.

edited 13th Nov '11 12:46:40 AM by ekuseruekuseru

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#91: Nov 13th 2011 at 6:43:41 AM

Actually there is some frontal nudity in Japanese Anime take for example Goku when he was a kid.

Dragon Ball is an exellent example of how the Americans will show all the violence but censor anything that might be vaguely sexual.

And so even if the Japanese and Europeans produce some very violent media... their cultures are not big on violence itself.

Take a look at Japan... almost all animes have either an apocalypse theme in which pride and war mongering lead to compleate destruction. A hero who is noble and is reluctant to fight and in the end gets most of his enemies to agree with him (unlike in the west where the hero almsot always has to either kill, hurt, or improson his enemies).

As for Europe something similar happened after WWII in which their societies put a lot of emphasis in human rights. But America is still, as someone called it before, the Sparta of the new world, do to me is like Babylon or Rome...

edited 13th Nov '11 6:52:58 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#92: Nov 13th 2011 at 6:53:40 AM

I would call it Rome, except Rome was a far more sexually open society.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#93: Nov 13th 2011 at 6:55:40 AM

[up]

good point...

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#94: Nov 13th 2011 at 8:13:52 AM

Violence is considered a bit more acceptable because kids are more likely to be familiar with it. Even if you could somehow hypothetically remove it from entertainment, kids would still see violence on the schoolyard because it's human nature to be violent.

Sex, on the other hand, is something kids aren't taught about until sixth grade or so, and puberty may or may not happen before then to make them actually interested in in it. So of course there will be more of a taboo against something that risks letting kids see sex that young.

Of course, that wouldn't address why it's also treated as inappropriate for teenagers, and I think that in particular is because in practice, the problem is not so much with portraying sex at all as with how exactly it is portrayed.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
kashchei Since: May, 2010
#95: Nov 13th 2011 at 9:20:16 AM

"Sex, on the other hand, is something kids aren't taught about until sixth grade or so, and puberty may or may not happen before then to make them actually interested in in it."

What are you basing this on? I was taught about sex very early on, with an illustrated children's book, and I became aware of arousal at the age of nine. So did my friends, for that matter, since this is something we talked about.

By the time we had sex ed (yes, in the sixth grade), people were already hooking up, incorporating foreplay into the games of spin the bottle and truth or dare, and showing each other how they masturbated.

edited 13th Nov '11 9:24:17 AM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#96: Nov 13th 2011 at 9:59:52 AM

[up] Unless that illustrated book was part of the cirriculum before grade six, you don't know if a given pre-sixth-grade kid has heard of sex before then.

And by the time you're in grade six you're almost teenagers anyway. Again, this is why media with more overt references to sex (as opposed to especially subtle references to it) would get PG-13 rather than R, and besides, it's considered somewhat acceptable for teenagers to watch R-rated movies anyway.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
kashchei Since: May, 2010
#97: Nov 13th 2011 at 10:09:19 AM

You didn't answer my question. What is your reason for assuming that children do not learn about sex prior to the age of twelve? Presumably, most of us have sexually active parents, access to a television, and know where babies come from (if from nothing else, than because of their science class). You underestimate how much contact children have with the outside world.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
HiddenFacedMatt Avatars may be subject to change without notice. Since: Jul, 2011
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
#98: Nov 13th 2011 at 10:17:09 AM

You didn't answer my question. What is your reason for assuming that children do not learn about sex prior to the age of twelve?
If you're going to argue that they do learn about sex, the burden of justification should be on you.

Presumably, most of us have sexually active parents
Who do it out of sight of children and avoid making much noise while doing so.

access to a television
With channels that aren't likely to mention sex during times when the kids would be awake. (If the turns on the television when waking up in the middle of the night, good luck not waking up the parents by doing so.)

and know where babies come from (if from nothing else, than because of their science class).
Sex does not follow from what is taught in science class.

edited 13th Nov '11 10:18:06 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
kashchei Since: May, 2010
#99: Nov 13th 2011 at 10:25:30 AM

"If you're going to argue that they do learn about sex, the burden of justification should be on you."

This works both ways. The burden of proof isn't not on you simply because you spoke first, or had an experience that feeds your conclusion.

If your science class didn't manage to include the difference between sexual and asexual reproduction, I suggest suing your school for being utterly incompetent.

edited 13th Nov '11 10:26:59 AM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#100: Nov 13th 2011 at 10:41:24 AM

"Because they want to rationalize not getting any."

Or maybe I have moral standards.

I'm baaaaaaack

Total posts: 222
Top