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

[Takara]

An acquaintance of mine recently posted a picture on deviantART that had a mature content, and boy did it create a debate!

Basically, some people were complaining about the picture because it was depicting two people in a sexual situation (even though neither the genitals nor the female's breasts were even showing), which lead to others arguing that people are generally quick to denounce sex in art, books, movies, etc, even if the subject is treated tastefully (ie. nothing that could be classified as pornographic) while graphic violence is generally more accepted.

What is worse, really? A scene in a movie showing people getting shot, stabbed, beathen to death, and blown to bits left and right, or a scene showing a couple having an intimate moment? What are your thoughts on the subject?

[Breine]

Violence/gore is worse of the two, since sex is something completely natural - I still don't know why people/parents try to make it taboo.. I thought they wanted grandkids? Anyways, I don't mind violence in movies either, since it can be hilariously entertaining.. but out of the two it makes way more sense to censor violence/gore than it does censoring sex and such.

I mean, just how people reacted to the whole Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident made me laugh heartily. C'mon! It was just a friggin' boob, and you couldn't even see half of it because of that weird star piercing. Just think about that the next time you see someone breast feeding in public and everyone's fine with it.

[Miriel]

America really has a problem with depictions of sex, faaaar more than depictions of crazy violence. Male genitalia = automatic NC17 rating. Decapitations, guttings, human flesh being blown into bits and flung around = Rated R. Funny how it works.

I have no problem with sex in movies or TV. I mean, if I did, I would never watch The Tudors. There's boobies and butts all over the place in that show. And King Henry just runs around smurfing all the fine ladies. And nude photography that's done artfully is one of the most profound photographic genres in my opinion. Some of my absolute favorite photographers in the world have done a lot of amazing nude photography work.

If I had to choose a movie to watch that was either lots of gore, or lots of sex. I'd choose the sex!*

*I'm really not a fan of porn movies though. Sensuality is better than just random smurfing in my opinion.

[Pureghetto]

Why am I feeling like I need to know what image we're talking about? I scanned through your friends list on DA and found some images that were mature, but saw nothing wrong with any of them.

I, for some reason, have the impression that Americans are promiscuous, when in fact, it seems to be the case that you are the least promiscuous bunch. Sexuality is very taboo in America apparently, and that creates the cultural expectation that sex should follow very specific rules. Violence on the other hand, has almost no limits, as long as certain levels of gore are avoided.

I mean, if you think about horror movies, it is basically the theatrical audience watching a man (typically) go about stalking and murdering people in very gruesome fashions. I sat through the movie 'Hostel' and 'Hostel 2' without looking away once. Not going to describe scenes, but it is pretty incredibly violent from an objective standpoint. Yet we don't protest it.

Alternatively, we have incidents like the wardrobe malfunction that happened in the Superbowl half-time show. For a short period of time, people saw a part of a female's anatomy. More ruckus was made about that than a movie where people were tortured and kidnapped, then murdered. There's something bizarre about that.

[Takara]

Oh, i'm not a fan of porn either, because it depicts sex most of the time in a very unrealist way, and it's done in a way that really exploits the actors.

A very sensual scene in a movie, though? It can be beautiful, in an artistic sense, when done correctly.

(It's probably the French part of me speaking louder than the Canadian part, mind you...)

[Noctiluca]

Originally Posted by Breine ^

I mean, just how people reacted to the whole Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident made me laugh heartily. C'mon! It was just a friggin' boob, and you couldn't even see half of it because of that weird star piercing. Just think about that the next time you see someone breast feeding in public and everyone's fine with it.

Yeah, I remember talking about that when it happened. They wigged out over what is basically a side boob. You can see about the same thing and more often if you just head to the beach and watch girls swim.

It's true that the sex/violence relationship is ludicrous. I don't understand why we tolerate one and not the other. By the time I was a young teenager, I know I was mature enough to see two people boinking on screen and not go psycho about it. What's there to go psycho about? Not like I didn't know how it worked. And the stuff on screen is usually pushing intimacy. Romantic junk. That's sweet, not vulgar.

But then I never saw the big deal with actual porn either. If I had a 15-year-old son that was jackrabbiting to porn, I'd probably just "pretend" I didn't know it was going on and wish him good luck. So maybe I'm a little too lenient, I dunno.

[El Bandito]

Originally Posted by Miriel ^

Male genitalia = automatic NC17 rating.

Not necessarily. I can think of a couple movies off the top of my head that managed to show full frontal male nudity and still receive an R rating.

In society today, I think the main emphasis on any censorship is for children's sake and generally we fear the younger generation's sexual experimentation more than their mindless fighting. You go home with a black eye and a bloody nose, that's just kids rough-housing and taking it too far. You go home and tell your mom that you and a girl were touching each other in your "special places" and the response is "OH GOD! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MORAL FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY?!"

It's way harder to talk to kids about sex than violence, thus we fear media forcing the issue before we can prepare to give them "the talk". I'm sure some kind of warlike mentality comes into play somehow as well.

[Alex151]

Originally Posted by El Bandito ^

Originally Posted by Miriel ^

Male genitalia = automatic NC17 rating.

Not necessarily. I can think of a couple movies off the top of my head that managed to show full frontal male nudity and still receive an R rating.

Eastern Promises is one I can think of


I have no problem with either of the two, but my opinion is that, yes, violence is worse, especially when its the protagonist being violent, it makes younger kids, or sometimes anyone want to be like them. I guess peoples biggest deal with sexual parts in movies are that they might make younger people want to have premarital sex??


My dad used to always tell me, "violence breeds violence"