Which bothers you more, sex or violence?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Which bothers you more, sex or violence?
28
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 10:48am

Too much violent video gaming is desensitizing as is too much hardcore pornography IMO.

The standards that theatres have in place should also apply to video games IMO.

Nudity & normal sexual situations as part of a plot/story line aren't one bit offensive to me but when there's sex just for the sake of sex I find it redundant.

Complete article at link...

SCOTUS: Violence OK. Sex? Maybe

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D3369A9F-CFC9-4BD1-B291-BF82CE86E063

>"In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that video games can be sold to minors no matter how violent the games are. And some video games, like the popular “Mortal Kombat” and “Grand Theft Auto” series, are very violent.

But so are fairy tales, wrote Anthony Scalia, a very conservative justice of the court. “‘Grimm’s Fairy Tales’ … are grim indeed,” he wrote. “As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers ‘till she fell dead on the floor.’”"<

skip

>"Which brings us to bare, naked, filthy sex.

Wait. How did I get from violence to sex? Because the Supreme Court has always taken depictions of sex far, far more seriously than depictions of violence.

Want to sell minors games in which they blow the heads off cops in eruptions of brain-splattering gore? Be my guest, says the court.

Want to show two people making love? Whoa, there. That’s a different matter.

And it’s a matter the justices have visited many times, even subjecting themselves to the indignity of watching obscene movies (over and over again with only a few popcorn breaks) in their chambers.

The United States was once a country that banned the works of authors like D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce (and seized copies of their works from tourists entering the country). But that changed in 1957, when the high court ruled that material had to appeal to the “prurience” of the average person according to prevailing “community standards” in order to be banned as obscene.

What the heck did that mean? Nobody really knew, though in 1964 Justice Potter Stewart ruled that anything except “hard-core pornography” was protected by the First Amendment.

And what is “hard-core pornography”?

Glad you asked. Because Potter Stewart’s reply entered history: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”

Some people thought that didn’t sound very legalistic, but it makes perfect sense. There is a difference between the nudity in “The Pawnbroker” and in “Deep Throat,” and most people know it when they see it.

Not satisfied, however, the Supreme Court kept fiddling around until 1973, when it came up with three standards, all of which had to be present to rule something beyond the protection of the First Amendment:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work as a whole would appeal to the prurient interest.

2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by state law.

3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Which pretty much leaves a hole big enough to drive a semi-trailer through. And this is why the “adult entertainment” industry today is huge, with some claiming it is a $10 billion-to-$14 billion-a-year industry. That is as much as Americans “spend attending professional sporting events, buying music or going out to the movies,” according to a “60 Minutes” report from several years ago.

The computer and video game industry, by no means all of which is adult in content, took in $11.7 billion in 2008, according to the Entertainment Software Association’s annual report.

So it looks like simulated sex and simulated violence are here to stay in America.

And if that bothers you, keep in mind that the real stuff probably gets us in more trouble.

So it looks like simulated sex and simulated violence are here to stay in America.

And if that bothers you, keep in mind that the real stuff probably gets us in more trouble."<

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 11:04am
Another article on this topic...... 'Mortal Combat' and the First Amendment

http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2011/06/30/mortal_combat_and_the_first_amendment/page/full/

Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games. Experientially, I don't.

It's fine for the majority to say parents have ultimate control over what their children see, but how many members of the Supreme Court have experienced "real" life? Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference last Saturday and said, "I don't think any of us have a Facebook page or a tweet -- whatever that is. But technology is making inroads." It certainly is.

According to the Huffington Post, at least one justice -- Stephen Breyer -- has a private Twitter account, which he said he used "to track the so-called Green Revolution in Iran following the country's 2009 presidential elections. But he told a House Appropriations general government subcommittee he was testifying in front of that he had been unsure how to erase the account."

Justices live in an unreal world. They have little experience with cyberspace and violent video games. They bring law school minds to a subject that requires practical experience.

Justices enjoy security that protects them from the kind of assaults depicted in games like "Mortal Kombat" and others in which children are allowed to emulate school shooting sprees or virtually carry out assassinations, decapitations, rape, torture and every other unimaginable horror one human being can inflict upon another.

In his dissent, Justice Breyer asked the right question: "What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

Justices should step out of their safety zones and experience life on urban streets where mortal combat is for real and shootings are as commonplace as corrupt politicians. Where do armed teenagers in roving gangs get the idea that life is cheap and can be so easily taken without regard to social mores? Children aren't born this way. They must be taught these things, and if parents aren't teaching them -- or more accurately "parent," since fathers are usually absent and it doesn't take a sociologist to see a connection -- a violent and life-denying culture is happy to fill the moral void.

Does anyone believe Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen a day when violent images of the worst sort ought to be protected by the First Amendment? When he wrote about freedom of the press, did "press" mean blood and gore? And if it did, should anything be banned? Should any child be told "no"?

There are a number of laws governing childhood behavior that have never been successfully challenged. Minors are told they can't smoke or drink until a certain age. Why does the state consider it injurious for minors to take alcohol into their stomachs and nicotine into their lungs, but not harmful for them to absorb the most violent images into their minds?

If alcohol produces a reaction in minors the state finds harmful and if cigarettes injure developing lungs and contribute to rising health care costs, -- and so the state imposes age restrictions -- what do violent images produce and why can't the law impose age restrictions on those?

Minors can't sign contracts. The state won't let kids drive cars until a certain age, believing, rightly, that they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility. Some argue that even at age 16, the legal driving age in most states, children are still not sufficiently mature enough to drive, as evidenced by the high accident rate among teens.

Anyone who has tried to stop an adolescent from ignoring a parent's wishes knows what I'm talking about. In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what's in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 11:13am
Gratuitous violence over gratuitous sex. Violence, because I feel the number of potential victims is higher.

As long as the situation furthers the story line, fine. Otherwise either is annoying & off-putting to me. I won't go to a movie that I know has such content....and such video games have never been allowed in our house.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 11:44am
Not big on either one. Sex is private. Violence undermines society and creates victims. Nix to both being splashed on a screen, billboard, or video game.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 11:58am
People wouldn't watch porn or play violent games if there wasn't something intrinsic within the human condition about these things.

I'm not a fan of either, but it seems better to have people play their violent games than actually be violent. Same with porn. I'd rather have a man watch porn than assault women.

Graphic deceptions of violence, perversion, rape and what not are older than the bible.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2011
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 4:33pm

Maybe it's just better to let the market decide.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 7:39pm
Sad but true. Funny, if Christian religious organizations speak out about these very topics, guess who is the first to bash them? Lol!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 8:02pm
Really? Would you like to see again where laws are meant to be a function of state, not church? IMHO, religious groups may teach their precepts and values to followers but do NOT have a right to impose their beliefs by fiat.

And why single out Christian religious organizations? Most world religions speak out against violence and promiscuity.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Fri, 07-01-2011 - 1:46am

Maybe it's just better to let the market decide.****

Me and my husband joke that when our daughter spends the night at Nana's, we can watch a movie with swear words. It's strange, but since we became parents, we don't like thriller/killer movies like we used to, and usually end up turning them off, in favor of a comedy.



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Fri, 07-01-2011 - 9:00am

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Fri, 07-01-2011 - 1:37pm
Why just Christians? I"m a Pagan & I speak out against violence in video games; unnecessary violence in movies (some movies are nothing but one long run of violence); etc.

Many organizations speak out against excessive sex or violence. However, LAWS are a function of government...and all religions must be kept separate.

 nwtreehugger  

Pages