-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-05-26 01:38
Basically a re-write of the one I did on guru.
These days parents and authorities like the MPAA or the FCC just love to censor anything remotely sexual, or at the very least put ratings on it to scare parents away from letting their kids watch.
On the other hand, more and more violence is sneaking in. It's perfectly alright for some guy to run around town shooting bad guys, splattering their blood and organs all over the place, but once he goes home to his girlfriend and her top comes off, alarm bells go off.
Now I agree that people of a certain age shouldn't really be seeing boobies, but then again they shouldn't be seeing world war III breaking out between an invincible hero and some hired goons.
What kind of message is it sending out to people when violence is accepted but the slightest bit of nudity either gets censored or bumps up the rating from 13+ to 16/18+? It's okay to massacre each other but love, sex and the human body is wrong?
I think the whole idea is just wrong. I rather it be the other way around, as taboo as it might seem. I think the natural, human things such as love scenes and nudity should be what's acceptable and violence be on the negative end of things. After all, that's how it is in real life. Just because it's on the big screen or TV doesn't change the fact that violence in real life lands you in jail, while natural human behavior, while it should be kept private, is perfectly acceptable.
I'm not saying I want porn to be viewable by all. Non-pornographic nudity such as a person coming out of the shower or getting dressed, or being together with their partner in a non-pornographic way (i.e: top only, if at all, camera angles can work wonders).
After all, in Europe they have advertisements running in broad daylight with topless women for people of all ages to see. So I really think something is wrong here.
-
Blassreiter wrote on 2010-05-26 01:55
One may cause a kid to make one person disappear from the world, while the other one may cause a kid to create another person in this world.
But jokes aside, both issues are a big deal. Both violence and sexual themes may cause a kid to do those things and of course that is bad, however they may teach the kid to never do this.
If I were to choose which one to censor, it would be violence. Of course hardcore "pornography" where the goal is to get the p3n0r in the v4g should obviously not be aired. I believe something like nudity shouldn't be too much of a deal since it's basically natural to be naked. We were not born with clothes on. Sexual themes like intercourse is a different story since it may prompt a minor to follow what they see, which is bad.
Violence is more dangerous because it is easier to enact violence seen in movies and get hurt badly, or death. I doubt a kid would be able to understand what the hell is going on when he sees humping so it's a lot less dangerous since it's not easily copied if you know what I mean.
-
Time wrote on 2010-05-26 02:12
It all depends on the age group, I mean, young kids, I can see censoring both, but I mean really once your lets say 12 you probably understand it all and it really doesn't matter what you see, because you probably shouldn't be acting by what you see on tv by then. But really, people take the human body way to seriously, its not like anyone who really wanted to couldnt find these things on the internet in under a minute anyway, I dont get why its so censored on TV and videogames and stuff.
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2010-05-26 02:21
Both are "morally wrong"
but both can be controlled (unless if you're mentally affected like this female human)
http://mabination.com/mabination-community/general-discussions/news/432-woman-falls-off-wii-fit-becomes-sex-addict.html
with sex comes sexual responsibility
don't need to go into detail
just follow that advice and there shall be less abortions
meaning less money invested into someone who isn't responsible
(this does not mean all those want abortions are irresponsible, victims of rape are excluded)
violence is very dangerous
but the cat is sure it can be controlled
unless again if you are mentally incapable
-
Tedio wrote on 2010-05-26 02:27
Violence is worse. Easier to follow at any age.
censor it to a certain degree but don't go protesting that it should be removed or anything.
People should explain to their children the differences between the television world and this one. So we don't have things like school shootings and whatnot.
-
MagitekKefka wrote on 2010-05-26 04:45
I agree with Osay that violence should be considered worse than nudity and whatnot. I recall a rather jarring experience I had as a counselor at a summer camp. One of my friends who was also a counselor was talking to a small child (7 or so) about some of the new video games coming out. He tried to talk to the kid about the new mario game coming out, but the kid just kept talking over him about a rather gruesome game (of which I do not remember the name) and excitedly reciting the button combinations and their effects (and if you press A then X you can rip his head off and cut it with a chainsaw!), quite obviously thinking that violence in video games was the coolest thing ever. That memory surfaces to me whenever a conversation about violent video-games emerges as it alerted me to the true state of this issue.
My personal belief is that it depends on the level of maturity of an individual as to whether they should be allowed to play a certain game or not. Certain people are simply more mature than others and can comprehend and deal with such topics at and earlier age then others. The problem lies in the fact that there are no definitive ways to tell what will be appropriate for whom.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-26 05:27
Violent content is worse.
People having sex on TV is not at all detrimental to a young kid who has been taught what sex is and how to be ready for sex (and how to be safe). It may induce some curiosity, but as long as it doesn't kill. Just raise your child correctly.
I don't at all believe that most teenage girls who get pregnant blame it on the overly sexual content they watched when they were younger. I would blame their parents for not being there. And a lot of times, it's just an accident. Blame the condom. However, educating kids prevents more pregnancies and maybe even more accidents. (Some kids may not put on a condom correctly, etc.).
Sure, you shouldn't be letting your child watch films rated NC-17 in the first place. However, an innocent sex scene isn't so bad. As long as it's not borderline porn. AKA, boobs bouncing up and down, lots of different positions and whatnot.
Rape is most times violent, so that doesn't count as purely sexual content. I don't think kids should be allowed to see rape when they are young. Still, educate them on what is acceptable and not acceptable. Rape being the latter, of course.
-
Kazuni wrote on 2010-05-26 05:34
There's a bit of a border to both, but the difference between them right now is pretty big.
I mean, at my school, kids were making sex jokes in 4th grade, and nobody gave a damn. In 5th grade we got family life class, but no all that stuff is censored on healthy shows.
My mom heard that one of her friends' son was watching porn and she gave me a whole lecture about how he was horrible and I should never hang around him. I can see why the borders are so far apart, my parents didn't give a shoot when it came to me watching anime people (Inuyasha in grade 4.. lol) ripping monsters' heads off but as soon as it got to a kissing scene they ushered me away from the TV.
Yeah, I can see it, but I don't get it.
-
MrShandavio wrote on 2010-05-26 16:28
Here's my take. Sex is more private. It's "taboo" at times, and isn't talked about (I'm talking children under 13 or so). Watching a sex scene with your family at that age is just awkward. Watching an action scene is better. Don't ask me why. That's just how it is.
-
Lolicon wrote on 2010-05-27 06:28
Hm, I've never seen boobies in a rated T game.
BUT. Yeah, its kinda weird. The thing is, my parents are OPPOSITE of other people. They let me play games with nudity, but not blood :lol:
I don't play sexual games anyways >.>
Ze bloody games... yes, I do.
Quote from Kazuni;44502:
There's a bit of a border to both, but the difference between them right now is pretty big.
I mean, at my school, kids were making sex jokes in 4th grade, and nobody gave a damn. In 5th grade we got family life class, but no all that stuff is censored on healthy shows.
My mom heard that one of her friends' son was watching porn and she gave me a whole lecture about how he was horrible and I should never hang around him. I can see why the borders are so far apart, my parents didn't give a shoot when it came to me watching anime people (Inuyasha in grade 4.. lol) ripping monsters' heads off but as soon as it got to a kissing scene they ushered me away from the TV.
Yeah, I can see it, but I don't get it.
I don't know how much I ditto to that.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-05-27 23:52
My parents used to cover up my eyes when we watched movies that shows intense making out, or any form of nudity. If there were guns blazing and blood flying, they had no objections though.
-
Kaldo wrote on 2010-07-08 03:28
My parents always comment whenever there's an intimate scene, such as the final kiss at the end of a PG movie. I'm 16.
-
Hiccup wrote on 2010-07-08 06:10
Quote from Osayidan;44360:
These days parents and authorities like the MPAA or the FCC just love to censor anything remotely sexual, or at the very least put ratings on it to scare parents away from letting their kids watch.
Oh...... kinda like Nation has a PG14 limit, yet still under mod discretion?
-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-07-09 00:10
Quote from bradstrt;85452:
Oh...... kinda like Nation has a PG14 limit, yet still under mod discretion?
Yup, like that.
Sometimes I feel like making this place 18+ and kick everyone else out, but that would be silly Dx
-
kuri wrote on 2010-07-10 05:07
i think that although parents mean well by putting the censor on sexual content, a lot do it because they feel uncomfortable with the subject. their parents taught them that sex is something dirty and they never really got over it so that when it comes time to teach their kids, they're unable to address it. it becomes a cycle that doesn't regard sex as something natural that should be performed with caution but as something unnatural and dirty, something we "don't talk about"
repressed sexuality only causes disconnection in communication between parent and child. a child that has been shown repeatedly by parents that sex is something dirty would never feel comfortable talking/asking his/her parents about it, because it would be acknowledging that sex has a presence in their lives, that they want to have sex,
that they are something dirty