pornography and violence.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » pornography and violence.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 01:16 pm
Is it me or has our moral values been confused by general or Victorian standards. Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex? We are allowed sociable to watch someones head get chopped off but not that disgusting act of a man and women actually doing it..urghhh. What is it in our psyche or values that decides certain reprehensible act are for public consumption but less violent acts are scorned at.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 01:34 pm
@xris,
Sex does seem to bring about some conflicting views. Even John Stuart Mill considered sexual acts in public as an exception to his 'harm principle'. Perhaps its remanence of religion.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 01:46 pm
@josh0335,
It may be religion but i cant find any reference to it, to concern us. We are all the same, why is it? Even crime is seen differently, expose yourself, not that Im recommending it, its seen as just as bad as kicking someones head in. Not that Ive done either may i add. It embarrasses us but violence in a film , just the norm.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 03:23 pm
@xris,
xris;103648 wrote:
Is it me or has our moral values been confused by general or Victorian standards. Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex? We are allowed sociable to watch someones head get chopped off but not that disgusting act of a man and women actually doing it..urghhh.


Awesome, I couldn't have said it better.

xris;103648 wrote:
What is it in our psyche or values that decides certain reprehensible act are for public consumption but less violent acts are scorned at.


I don't really know; my inkling is a Twisted Set of Values.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 03:25 pm
@xris,
xris;103648 wrote:
Is it me or has our moral values been confused by general or Victorian standards. Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex? We are allowed sociable to watch someones head get chopped off but not that disgusting act of a man and women actually doing it..urghhh. What is it in our psyche or values that decides certain reprehensible act are for public consumption but less violent acts are scorned at.


Good observation, Xris. This cultural norm is due to the lingering of puritan, christian, Victorian, moral values, of which I find poisoning to the human spirit. It seems that in the history of Christianity, sex is scorned more than violence. There seems to have been more room for violence than for sexual liberation.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 07:32 pm
@xris,
xris;103648 wrote:
Is it me or has our moral values been confused by general or Victorian standards. Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex? We are allowed sociable to watch someones head get chopped off but not that disgusting act of a man and women actually doing it..urghhh. What is it in our psyche or values that decides certain reprehensible act are for public consumption but less violent acts are scorned at.


I've been wondering the same thing for a while now...we have movies rated "PG-13" with extreme violence, profanity, and depictions of people committing outright evil acts and plots against one another. Yet, with sex, even if done artistically, it's automatically "NC-17" or "porn".
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 07:50 pm
@xris,
xris;103648 wrote:
Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex?
Nudity and most sex scenes in typical Hollywood movies is / are pretty innocuous. Porn is a different story when it comes to kids' exposure: it completely dissociates sex from relationships, it can arouse children, and most importantly it has been associated with sexual and relationship dysfunction during adulthood.
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 08:06 pm
@xris,
i have to say i dont consider the sex act pornography, though i dont know why anyone would want to watch it. the act of going to the toilet is also natural and healthy but why put it in paintings and movies?

to me pornography has to be deviant, aberrant, exploitative, or in some way violent, beyond vulgar or common. it is a term i would apply to some news broadcasts which have nothing to do with sex. to me following families around who have suffered some tragedy, filming them up close and putting it on television is pornography. if it isnt we need to create a new word for it.

advertising inrelated products such as motorcycles, yet showing closeups of body parts is pornography in my mind among other things that are commonly accepted.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 10:21 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;103711 wrote:
Nudity and most sex scenes in typical Hollywood movies is / are pretty innocuous. Porn is a different story when it comes to kids' exposure: it completely dissociates sex from relationships, it can arouse children, and most importantly it has been associated with sexual and relationship dysfunction during adulthood.


Don't some experts also suggest a link between exposure to violent media and actual violence, especially with children?

---------- Post added 11-15-2009 at 11:27 PM ----------

salima;103712 wrote:
i have to say i dont consider the sex act pornography, though i dont know why anyone would want to watch it. the act of going to the toilet is also natural and healthy but why put it in paintings and movies?

to me pornography has to be deviant, aberrant, exploitative, or in some way violent, beyond vulgar or common. it is a term i would apply to some news broadcasts which have nothing to do with sex. to me following families around who have suffered some tragedy, filming them up close and putting it on television is pornography. if it isnt we need to create a new word for it.

advertising inrelated products such as motorcycles, yet showing closeups of body parts is pornography in my mind among other things that are commonly accepted.


I think it's pretty clear why people would rather watch attractive people have sex than watch a person take a dump. Pornography is not synonymous with exploitation.
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 10:55 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;103731 wrote:

I think it's pretty clear why people would rather watch attractive people have sex than watch a person take a dump. Pornography is not synonymous with exploitation.


hue, you are too funny! to me, neither one would be interesting, sorry...

and no, exploitation isnt synonymous with pornography, but there are certain acts which may or may not involve sex which because of the element of exploitation i would define as pornography. in other words, i see pornography as being more than just in bad taste-it would have to contain the intent and potential of causing illegal acts...i havent really given it that much thought to be able to properly explain my feelings about it. i know by most standards i would be considered a 'prude'.

there is something rotten in human psychology as far as sex is concerned and that is why pornography exists in the first place. if everyone knew it was normal, healthy and not have warped ideas and hangups about it, i dont think pornography would survive. many people have unrealistic expectations for sex and when they dont find what they thought they would get, they try to get it by going further. i dont know, i havent made a study of all the deviations in thinking about sex, but there are plenty of them.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 11:10 pm
@salima,
salima;103738 wrote:
there is something rotten in human psychology as far as sex is concerned and that is why pornography exists in the first place. if everyone knew it was normal, healthy and not have warped ideas and hangups about it, i dont think pornography would survive. many people have unrealistic expectations for sex and when they dont find what they thought they would get, they try to get it by going further. i dont know, i havent made a study of all the deviations in thinking about sex, but there are plenty of them.


There are rotten things in human psychology as far as everything is concerned. It doesn't just apply to sex. There is nothing wrong with general pornography, but as with everything, there are some deviant and violent variations of porn out there that are pretty sick.
 
validity
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 02:42 am
@xris,
xris;103648 wrote:
Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex?
cos the government wants it's future ground troops to kill the enemy, not hump them.

I will give it some thought on my way to work tomorrow (good thinking time) and if I come up with non-conspiracy based comments I will post.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 04:25 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;103711 wrote:
Nudity and most sex scenes in typical Hollywood movies is / are pretty innocuous. Porn is a different story when it comes to kids' exposure: it completely dissociates sex from relationships, it can arouse children, and most importantly it has been associated with sexual and relationship dysfunction during adulthood.
Im not defending porn or suggesting children should watch it. My interest lies in why we allow the most horrendous violence to be portrayed but the sex act is taboo.You would not see a PC game of sexual fantasy being given permission but they let our children kill thousands in silly war games.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 05:12 am
@xris,
Try this idea. All porn is violent.

What?! you say. Violence only refers to pain!

Well, no, actually. Several definitions of violence:

Quote:
Violent: adj:
intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.


I reckon all these can be applied to pornography. Indeed, if the sensations and reactions it causes were not violent, there would be no topic for discussion.

OK nobody wants to defend graphic televised violence. But one can watch a night's TV, including episodes of dramatised violence, murders, and the like, without necessarily wanting to go out and emulate what you have seen (with some exceptions, of course).

But if you're a male (and I can't speak for females) and you watch footage of actual graphic sexuality for any length of time, then the odds are, you are going to want to act it out, in some degree or another.

Tell me I am wrong here.

Now it is a fact that for many people (hazard a guess - hundreds of millions) this actually forms a feedback loop which is actually quite addictive.

But of course, all of us sophisticated moderns know that 'nobody is hurt', or so we tell ourselves.

Now I am not going to debate this ad infinitum, it is a highly emotional and divisive topic.

But these are two points about it.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 05:48 am
@jeeprs,
I see your point but I'm not talking about the extremes of porn but the act of sex that we see as porn. If we judged entertainment on the detrimental effects it has on the individual, then the violent acts would be excluded also. Victorians hid a ladies ankle for fear of arousing a mans instincts but agreed with torturing suspects. We need to address this strange anomaly in our behaviour , surely?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 08:27 am
@xris,
Social orders typically require a warrior class yet are unbalanced by population booms.

Hence a taboo on sex but a glorification of war.

Unless there has been a population crash.

When a glorification of producing 2.4 children typically follows.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 08:36 am
@xris,
xris;103648 wrote:
Is it me or has our moral values been confused by general or Victorian standards. Why is it reasonable to let kids watch the most horrendous violence but not the act of sex? We are allowed sociable to watch someones head get chopped off but not that disgusting act of a man and women actually doing it..urghhh. What is it in our psyche or values that decides certain reprehensible act are for public consumption but less violent acts are scorned at.


Maybe there is something valuable in the innocence of children. There are restrictions on what children can watch on TV and in the movies. That these are not well enforced, or that parents don't use the devices can can censor films and TV is a different thing. If we wanted to enforce a complete prohibition on what children can watch, we would have to completely censor what adults can watch. And, no one would be in favor of that. Not even the Constitution. So, I think your question is a bit of a straw-man.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 08:36 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;103810 wrote:
Social orders typically require a warrior class yet are unbalanced by population booms.

Hence a taboo on sex but a glorification of war.

Unless there has been a population crash.

When a glorification of producing 2.4 children typically follows.
I got you, a baby boom, as in the sixties. Are we that basic in our ethical thinking, are we still driven by urges rather than by logic?

---------- Post added 11-16-2009 at 09:47 AM ----------

kennethamy;103812 wrote:
Maybe there is something valuable in the innocence of children. There are restrictions on what children can watch on TV and in the movies. That these are not well enforced, or that parents don't use the devices can can censor films and TV is a different thing. If we wanted to enforce a complete prohibition on what children can watch, we would have to completely censor what adults can watch. And, no one would be in favor of that. Not even the Constitution. So, I think your question is a bit of a straw-man.
No sorry but your reply is bailed in straw. Im talking about our own inhibitions, our own allowances, we never censor for children, we censor for our own ethical reasons. If you knew a certain Chanel was showing gratuitous sex, the other violence, what would your feelings be about watching it with a mixed audience? Your actually saying its OK for kids to watch someones get stabbed rather than they watch a sex scene. I think you should be asking yourself more questions.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 09:18 am
@xris,
While I don't have the luxury of time to go into this discussion at any great length, I wish simply to put out my take; as just that . . . one take. (I don't really intend to defend it)

I tend to think (and I have looked into this matter a little bit) that one major impetus for this development, had been the tendency from a number of sources, in the development of social meta-grouping, to remove the human being from the pure part of nature that it is, and put this species on a plane above and detached from, all other members of the planet earth. This is something which underlies religious belief-systems' propagating sexual taboos even further--in most cases (think 'temple prostitution,' 'Kama Sutra,' etc. as out of the common norm)

We can argue that there is fair and healthy porn (which genre is a useful tool for long-term relationship bonding), and damaging and unhealthy porn (not just visual media). I tend to think that most porn is of the second genre; and it is addictive (although many other things are too, actually). Also as Aedes has pointed out, it can be damaging to sexual function (there are some theories on just what is happening, but I can't recall the details at the moment).

However, sexuality is a very, very important element of the human condition, both physically and neurologically, and a greater degree of honesty and truth about that is very late in coming in many parts of the world. One good book written by a female professor here in Japan dealt with sexual help for certain handicapped and invalid type patients--an actually very psychologically important point often overlooked by healthcare institutions, I think (I could be lacking in information here).

Being nude on the beach should be little different from being nude in the locker room, or in the open air hot spring--although there would be social etiquettes that would surely apply in each particular setting. However, few cultures are accustomed to the more natural mind set. This is simply nature. (I recall the woman's underwear designed for those of 'asexual' orientation which frankly had written on it, "Get over it; it's only underwear.") It also reminds me of the comment of one Japanese artist whose sculptures for a certain park were all nudes. When asked why all the figures were nude, he replied something along the lines of 'in nudity, we humans are all equal.'

The message I always try to get at, is that we H. sapiens are just as much a natural part of nature as any other, and all other, parts of nature, and in that way, should be a little more honest about it--it's healthier (in some ways, to a degree).
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 09:24 am
@xris,
The thread asks about a perceived disparity between media-based violence and pornography. The connection between pornography and violence has always been a spurious one; although some correlations can be made in the extremes, no causal factor's ever panned out.

Putting that aside, I too find it disturbing that violence is so allowable on various levels, yet any part of our natural bodies is so taboo. This is disproportionate and dehumanizing, in my opinion.

Thanks
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » pornography and violence.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 11:05:28