Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums > General > The Lounge > Violence, Gore, and Sexual Contents! Oh my!

[fire_of_avalon]

RE: Janet Jackson

The uproar over the wardrobe malfunction was never about her breast being there. It was the fact that her breast was exposed on live TV with millions of people (and kids) watching, and that people who would normally censor images like that from themselves and their families were subjected to it. That's why it was a big deal - not because Americans don't like boobies.

Otherwise I kinda agree with Spuuky on why sex is seen as "worse" than violence. Most people see violent images like that and it's immediately filed away as fantasy. Images of sex are more complicated and can give people silly expectations or aspirations. I don't think it should be removed or that it's bad, I just think that more people should realize sex isn't really the way you see it in films - it IS the way you see it in hardcore porn. Gross and hairy and squishy and wears way, way too much make up.

You'll find that most news organizations take great pains to shield their audiences from undue violence - most of the violence you see in the news is either the result of a live action broadcast or editing mishap or it's intentionally placed to convey the reality of a certain situation (footage of post-bomb Sarajevo comes to mind.)

[Araciel]

Well the wardrobe malfunction should serve to remind them that life isn't always perfect. Sometimes you're going to see things you shouldn't or don't want to, and then if you have children, you have to explain why or what or how.

[Shiny]

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse ^

To be perfectly honest, I have never fully understood the general population's concerns and reactions with sex, gore, language, etc...

It's not shocking, truly, it is not. We are a culture in which we are steeped in random, pervasive images of nigh all and everything, and so to react as we do to certain things makes me light bit confused.

Mmhmm, It's not shocking because the media has desensitized us to those things, but some people just love to make a mountain of a mole hill. Anywayz, I pretty much agree with the general consensus that sex should be more acceptable than violence.

[The Unknown Guru]

Basically, it all comes down to whether you would rather have little kids beating on you with their tiny fists or humping your leg.

[Sagensyg]

I think sexual content should definitely be taken more harshly than some spiky haired guy launching his red energy beam of annihilation at some green guy wearing a robe.

[Nominus Experse]

Originally Posted by Sagensyg ^

I think sexual content should definitely be taken more harshly than some spiky haired guy launching his red energy beam of annihilation at some green guy wearing a robe.

And why exactly is that?

[Behold the Void]

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon ^

RE: Janet Jackson

The uproar over the wardrobe malfunction was never about her breast being there. It was the fact that her breast was exposed on live TV with millions of people (and kids) watching, and that people who would normally censor images like that from themselves and their families were subjected to it. That's why it was a big deal - not because Americans don't like boobies.

Otherwise I kinda agree with Spuuky on why sex is seen as "worse" than violence. Most people see violent images like that and it's immediately filed away as fantasy. Images of sex are more complicated and can give people silly expectations or aspirations. I don't think it should be removed or that it's bad, I just think that more people should realize sex isn't really the way you see it in films - it IS the way you see it in hardcore porn. Gross and hairy and squishy and wears way, way too much make up.

You'll find that most news organizations take great pains to shield their audiences from undue violence - most of the violence you see in the news is either the result of a live action broadcast or editing mishap or it's intentionally placed to convey the reality of a certain situation (footage of post-bomb Sarajevo comes to mind.)

Something to keep in mind though regarding the news outlets is the presence of gore is more likely and acceptable the further it is from the viewers. While the "breakfast test" still applies in many cases, news organizations as a whole, at least American ones, at any rate, are more likely to show a more gruesome scene if it happened off American soil.

For example, there were some truly horrific images to come out of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Americans did not see most of them, like the bodies of the people who jumped to their deaths instead of staying in the building as it collapsed. However, we do often see the aftermath of bombings in Iraq. How close it is to home has a major effect on what we do and do not see.

[Sagensyg]

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse ^

Originally Posted by Sagensyg ^

I think sexual content should definitely be taken more harshly than some spiky haired guy launching his red energy beam of annihilation at some green guy wearing a robe.

And why exactly is that?

I would think the ages when you could be most influenced by these things is 9 and below

Gory Content
Now I don't think a 9 year old could find a chainsaw, carry it over to someone, rev it up without the other person not noticing, lift it up, and proceed to slice them into ribbons (Let alone have the strength to do any of this) I can still see your argument though, the kid may be more violent if exposed to a lot of it, but I don't think it's anything permanent. I think the only real time when a kid becomes a violent adult is when things are going on IRL

Sexual Content
This is something more plausible about little kids who like to 'explore' their capabilities. Sex is something more realistic, like if you were to talk to a kid about it, they're reaction would be "Eww" but now they're seeing an adult do it constantly. This might change their minds into thinking "Maybe it's not so bad . . ." and so on