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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Fri, 07-01-2011 - 1:40pm
Quote: I agree with Cal Thomas that “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?’"

I find it incredibly sad that such video games exist even for adults!! IMHO, they are sick. And, in comparison with allowing a 13 yr old to see nude pics, it is much much worse!

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2011
Fri, 07-01-2011 - 3:31pm

*** 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: 08-30-2002
Fri, 07-01-2011 - 6:24pm

We actually don't have a TV. Netflix on the computer, every now and then, is our big treat, usually after the extracurriculars ;0).



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 10:22am
"...personally, I think people, for the most part, actually do like seeing excessive violence and hardcore sex."

This isn't about "people" this is about the young exposed to graphic violence. Shouldn't there be some censorship?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 10:25am
I don't watch violent films.... I even turn away when someone is being given a shot in a medical program.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 10:48am

"I see it too many people in our society are much more concerned about depictions of nudity than about depictions of violence, including sadistic violence and to me that is a very sad commentary on our society."

Exactly. For example the bare breast of "Spirit of Justice" statue being concealed by drapes was absurd, IMO.

From the link in your post.....

>" it is simply bizarre in dismissing the claimed harmful effects of violent depictions while still insisting on the strictest puritanical view of the dangers of sexual imagery"<

Children/teens will actively seek out sexual images no matter how restricted. Were nudity seen as normal in a healthy environment, a less secretive 'naughty' attitude towards sex, would develop. (Maybe Weiner wouldn't have had the urge 'share' his parts.)

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 11:18am

I really prefer thrillers or mysteries. Give me a good Sherlock Holmes, Hitchcock,



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 12:06pm

I tried my best to censor what my kids saw.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 12:09pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Sat, 07-02-2011 - 12:18pm