Philosophy Forum

Log In

Previous
1
2
3

Read Topic
Reply

pornography and violence.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;103909 wrote:

The point here is to discover why pornography and sex in the media is taboo, yet violence is acceptable and even glorified. They are certainly not both regarded as being equally obscene. Look at the rating systems for films and video games, for example.

But explicit sex in the media is not taboo. It is, however rated so that children are not supposed to be able to see it. (I know nothing about video games. But I don't think they are in the media). It is up to adults to censor violence and sex for children.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;103955 wrote:

But explicit sex in the media is not taboo. It is, however rated so that children are not supposed to be able to see it. (I know nothing about video games. But I don't think they are in the media). It is up to adults to censor violence and sex for children.

Sure it is. You can flip through cable TV and get all sorts of shows portraying shootings, stabbings, fighting, armed robberies, etc. You won't find any with explicit sex or nudity, unless you subscribe to certain 'premium' channels. :bigsmile: Similarly, violence is allowed in movies rated for children, and sexuality, even if only at a thematic or suggestive level, isn't allowed until the teenage rating level. Video game ratings work the same way. You don't think video games are a form of 'media'? :sarcastic:

I agree it is up to adults to censor these things from their children, but once again, this is going off topic. The issue has to do with why our society seems to accept gratuitous violence in the media for all age groups, and without issue, yet it reserves the depiction of sex acts for adults. What is it that makes violence more acceptable than sex in media?

@xris,

just a few random thoughts on the subject-

i believe violence is accepted by society because it is a major part of life on earth. how many people are being killed daily in warfare as compared to crimes involving sex? it is accepted as normal because it is a chosen way of life for humanity at this stage.

if you want to shield young people from violence you would have to censor the news, meaning tv and newspapers and magazines as well as cartoons, movies, videogames. they will likely continue to see violence on the playground in their school however.

i noticed a long time ago that a person would be humiliated if locked out of the house by accident while only wearing underwear-but would be unashamed to go to the beach wearing a swimsuit that covered far less of the body. (in usa) ???why???

my impression is that the human psyche is and has been since the beginning of civilization (i doubt if there is porn in primitive societies...can there be porn without media and cameras?) in a state of confusion over its sexuality. this i see both in america and in india though the attitudes towards it are completely differently, the problem is the same.

i think america has come full circle now with its 'anything goes' and 'everything is natural' and is now beginning to feel there is a need to find what went wrong. part of the problem with relationships involves the unhealthy understanding of sexuality, it is certainly a part of the misunderstanding between the sexes and the loss of family values.

i would like to know more about the societies that are the most permissive and what kind of crime they have and marriage/divorce/relationship quality there.

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;103958 wrote:

What is it that makes violence more acceptable than sex in media?

What I said before. Research will show that the average teenager will have seen X,000 simulated murders or violent acts on television by the time they are 16. And god knows modern society is violent enough. Yet if you take 100,000 such teenagers at the end of this period, how many of them would actually have killed someone or engaged in ultra-violent acts? (OK, I don't have the numbers, but this research does exist. And Regarding murder, I would guess the rate is several persons per 100,000.)

Now with regards to 'sex in the media' - and actually, the thread title is 'pornogaphy and violence', not 'sex and violence' - show the same 100,000 youths explicit depictions of wildly arousing sexual activity, and I will bet you that a much larger number will 'act out' these behaviours, than the behaviours depicted in violent television or movie shows. IN other words, far more than the very small number who actually get affected by televised violence.

OF COURSE it is better to have sex with someone than to beat and kill them. Duh! But that is not the point. The point is that youths, males in particular, are extremely susceptible to the habit-forming properties of pornography. It is highly addictive and many people find it impossible to give it up. There are support groups all over the States to help people unhook themselves from these behaviours. And it really damages and detracts from their ability to form normal relationships with real people who don't actually enjoy having sex with multiple partners in every orifice, and so on. So it is a 'silent epidemic' at this point (not so silent if you're related to one of the habitues) but down the track, how are all these kids whose whole adolescent sexuality has now been shaped around the supercharged imagery of The Industry going to 'settle down with the girl next door'? Misery comes in many forms.

I was just in the States. In every hotel I stayed in, there was a x-rated channel as one of the television offerings. I drove past a large, gaudily painted X-Rated Superstore in Tennessee (of all places!) Any internet terminal or computer in almost any country provides access to a practically endless amount of online porn in varities and genres that weren't even imaginable a decade ago. So, apart from anything else, it is not even true that 'the media' does not provide access to pornography. It is all over the place. And it is having a massive effect on society.

@hue-man,

hue-man;103731 wrote:

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

Indeed evidence suggests it, not just experts.

But this argues for restriction of exposure to violence, not for liberalization of exposure to sex. I personally think that the exposure to nudity that people have in Europe (nude beaches, nudity in movies and even on billboards) is innocuous. Sex is dicey -- young kids and even teens do not do a good job cognitively compartmentalizing sex from relationships, and the very physical and exaggerated nature of porn is not so innocuous either to young people.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;103967 wrote:

So, apart from anything else, it is not even true that 'the media' does not provide access to pornography. It is all over the place. And it is having a massive effect on society.

Yes, this 'media' is available, but it is still taboo. Even though porn is incredibly popular and widespread, thanks to the internet, it's something people do behind closed doors and don't really talk about. Violence, though, is not at all considered to be taboo, and is found everywhere, even in forms of media that are supposed to be acceptable for children. This is the issue.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;103967 wrote:

What I said before. Research will show that the average teenager will have seen X,000 simulated murders or violent acts on television by the time they are 16. And god knows modern society is violent enough. Yet if you take 100,000 such teenagers at the end of this period, how many of them would actually have killed someone or engaged in ultra-violent acts? (OK, I don't have the numbers, but this research does exist. And Regarding murder, I would guess the rate is several persons per 100,000.)

Now with regards to 'sex in the media' - and actually, the thread title is 'pornogaphy and violence', not 'sex and violence' - show the same 100,000 youths explicit depictions of wildly arousing sexual activity, and I will bet you that a much larger number will 'act out' these behaviours, than the behaviours depicted in violent television or movie shows. IN other words, far more than the very small number who actually get affected by televised violence.

OF COURSE it is better to have sex with someone than to beat and kill them. Duh! But that is not the point. The point is that youths, males in particular, are extremely susceptible to the habit-forming properties of pornography. It is highly addictive and many people find it impossible to give it up. There are support groups all over the States to help people unhook themselves from these behaviours. And it really damages and detracts from their ability to form normal relationships with real people who don't actually enjoy having sex with multiple partners in every orifice, and so on. So it is a 'silent epidemic' at this point (not so silent if you're related to one of the habitues) but down the track, how are all these kids whose whole adolescent sexuality has now been shaped around the supercharged imagery of The Industry going to 'settle down with the girl next door'? Misery comes in many forms.

I was just in the States. In every hotel I stayed in, there was a x-rated channel as one of the television offerings. I drove past a large, gaudily painted X-Rated Superstore in Tennessee (of all places!) Any internet terminal or computer in almost any country provides access to a practically endless amount of online porn in varities and genres that weren't even imaginable a decade ago. So, apart from anything else, it is not even true that 'the media' does not provide access to pornography. It is all over the place. And it is having a massive effect on society.

i see what you are saying, but might you be interpreting it backwards?

couldnt it be possible that the addictive quality of sex is what makes the industry flourish, and the fact that it is available is a result of the illness or aberration of some human beings? (or natural tendency if anyone wants to believe it is).

you believe that because the population is exposed to violence without censorship and the vast majority of the people have not taken up shooting each other at mcdonald's over a parking space means ... what, that it is not harmful to be violent in war and show it on television and accept it as normal?

what i am suggesting is that what media promotes and which industries flourish is a reflection of market demand. there may be a small number of people who are affected by watching violence on television but how many people are dying because it is acceptable all over the world?

my thoughts are disconnected, sorry...i am not trying to make any particular point, just looking from all the angles. i still see both problems in the world, violence and pornography, as symptoms rather than causes of things. what is behind violence is a wider subject, harder to define.

what is behind pornography is partly addiction, but a person addicted to pornography just wants to sit alone and play with himself more than anything else, i would guess. there is another kind of person who watches it with ideas in his mind of what he is going to go out and do-this is the pervert we are worried about most, and there is no way censorship of pornography is going to stop him. look at jeffrey dahmer...i wonder if he ever used to look at pornography. i think pornography came to be because there are some minds that thought it up in the first place.

but if all that the OP is concerned with is why is sex taboo and violence is not, the title of the thread is confusing us. in fact, my question might be why is sex taboo and pornography is not?

@xris,

But that reminds me of the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument by the gun lobby. And while 'vast majority of people' may not shoot each other at MacDonald's, it might be wise to recall that deaths by gunshot in the US far outstrip anywhere else in the developed world (and maybe even the whole world), in fact I think I remember reading that there is a gunshot death or injury every 75 seconds in the US. Yet there are very articulate and educated people who will testify in court that gun ownership is a constitutional right. And also that the recording and distribution of the most egregiously depraved sexual behaviour constitutes 'freedom of speech'. It does make me ask the question, what does constitute civil liberty and freedom?

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 07:51 PM ----------

sorry I have to get off this soapbox. It is on my mind for various reasons. Enough said from me. I will return to more esoteric subjects.

@jeeprs,

Let me just say when i gave it the heading of porn, I was also pointing out that any sexual encounter is considered porn. Society does not distinguish between gratuitous sex and loving sex, it classes them all the same. Its only violence that it categories and my point was why do we all ,me included, shy away from the idea of the sex act being shown but have no qualms about watching the most horrendous scenes of violence. Are we afraid of the consequences, to this display? is it a deep seated aversion?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;103989 wrote:

But that reminds me of the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument by the gun lobby. And while 'vast majority of people' may not shoot each other at MacDonald's, it might be wise to recall that deaths by gunshot in the US far outstrip anywhere else in the developed world (and maybe even the whole world), in fact I think I remember reading that there is a gunshot death or injury every 75 seconds in the US. Yet there are very articulate and educated people who will testify in court that gun ownership is a constitutional right. And also that the recording and distribution of the most egregiously depraved sexual behaviour constitutes 'freedom of speech'. It does make me ask the question, what does constitute civil liberty and freedom?

---------- Post added 11-17-2009 at 07:51 PM ----------

sorry I have to get off this soapbox. It is on my mind for various reasons. Enough said from me. I will return to more esoteric subjects.

well, i never said not to have limits and controls! i am an avid believer in gun control-total; no guns, not even manufactured. that makes more sense than trying to censor a child's video games for cartoon violence.

i am not making an argument against censorship. information (objective reporting of data) is what should not be censored-art and expression of personal opinions etc are really not meant to be put on display as i see it. i am also not one to try and remove all the toy guns from the shelves. if something will make a difference, let's do it. otherwise, drop it!

civil liberty and freedom i cant really comment on because i could live in any country on earth and i would feel i was free. freedom is an ideal that exists in the mind-the spirit is free, never the body. lock me in a prison and i will still believe i am free, because my mind and soul are more important.

so even if i am on a soapbox it is always an esoteric one...

@xris,

Roger Scruton writes well on this in his book on Culture.

Sex is of the utmost social important. It was once viewed as something sacred, that transcended the individual. In our hyper-individualized society, we forget sometimes that sex is the immortality of the tribe. It is the bridge between our ancestors and our descendants. Just as religion has been divorced from legal authority, so has the sacred been divorced from sexuality. Our genitals are toys now, occasionally used to make a baby -- in some ways one more toy for the post-everything consumer.

We are what Michel Houellebecq might call atomized. He's a brilliant French writer who tackles the modern sex issue brilliantly.

I have seen tasteful pornography that's pretty hot, straight intercourse of the young and beautiful. Some of it focuses on the woman's pleasure. I can't find violence in that.

@xris,

nobody (least of all me) can dispute the undeniable attraction of high-charged erotica (pant pant). Especially when you're young (fortunately that is applying a lot less to me nowadays, and it has some advantages.) Nevertheless, I still reckon some things are violently pleasurable, and if anything is, then porn has gotta be it. I remember the name of this guy Hoellebecq, I will have a look around for him (under Writers - Name Ending in Q - small group, I suspect...)

@xris,

"Violently pleasurable"? I can live with that phrase. I just like to distinguish between styles of pornography. Some are more defensible than others.

@jeeprs,

All I know is that scenes of graphic violence are tolerated almost without complaint but a graphic sex scene will get a film censored or rated quickly and there is something wrong with those priorities. Sex has gone from being sacred to being taboo and there is something wrong with that too. Sex is part of everyones life (well almost everyone) but hopefully violence is not. More sex, less violence, anyone? Make love, not war.

@xris,

yeah but sex as a spectator sport is something else again. These points already discussed previously though.

@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.

Because the usage of the 2 things.

It's hard for the goverment to condem violence as bad, as they have to commit acts of violence through policing, and warfare ..etc, but doesn't really have the porn as a viable tool in their program. Therefore it's easier to condem porn.

Previous
1
2
3

Read Topic
Reply

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 08:23:47

▲ ▼