So it seems that all the best shows nowadays are on HBO. I have certain religious restrictions against watching sexually suggestive and slightly pornographic material. So for instance, if I'm watching, say, Good Will Hunting, when I come upon the sex scene, I'll look away, mute, or just skip the scene.
However, some shows are so saturated with sex that it becomes a little ridiculous for me to watch.
I know that some people may not respect the particular perspective I have when it comes to TV and movies, but I hope you'll help me out here anyway.
So I've been told that I HAVE to watch True Blood, The Wire, and Dexter. However, in the past, HBO shows have been nothing but sex. I briefly watched Sopranos and Rome and quickly had to put them down. The fact that a song of fire and ice is coming out on HBO makes me need to solve this problem, and fast.
What do you all think? Is there sex in True Blood, Wire and Dexter? If so, is it possible to cut it out by skipping and the like?
Thanks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: So it seems that all the best shows nowadays are on HBO.
I disagree with this premise. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Do what I do during fight scenes and zone out.
There's sex in True Blood and if you don't want to see Ana Pacquin naked there are scenes you should skip.
As for Dexter, if it's the sex that's tweaking you out you should probably adjust your priorities.
Can't tell you about the wire. Not really my show.
Rivka, you would be right in detail and wrong in spirit. HBO (and SHO) have a disproportionate number of good shows when compared to other networks/cable channels.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There will almost certainly be sex in A Song of Ice and Fire, too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
From the people who brought you There Will Be Blood, in partnership with TomDavidson,
There Will Almost Certainly Be Sex.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, Rome.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: So it seems that all the best shows nowadays are on HBO. I have certain religious restrictions against watching sexually suggestive and slightly pornographic material. So for instance, if I'm watching, say, Good Will Hunting, when I come upon the sex scene, I'll look away, mute, or just skip the scene.
However, some shows are so saturated with sex that it becomes a little ridiculous for me to watch.
I know that some people may not respect the particular perspective I have when it comes to TV and movies, but I hope you'll help me out here anyway.
So I've been told that I HAVE to watch True Blood, The Wire, and Dexter. However, in the past, HBO shows have been nothing but sex. I briefly watched Sopranos and Rome and quickly had to put them down. The fact that a song of fire and ice is coming out on HBO makes me need to solve this problem, and fast.
What do you all think? Is there sex in True Blood, Wire and Dexter? If so, is it possible to cut it out by skipping and the like?
Thanks!
Can't say about Wire, but True Blood supposedly has a lot of sex and even nudity. Dexter is relatively tame in the first season, but on the 2nd season it has a lot more sex and nudity because of a heavy romance angle.
I think you can rather easily "skip" the sex on Dexter on the 1st season (which is IMHO also the best), but remember that the show is also VERY graphically violent.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The Wire has some nudity and sex but not a lot - I've watched the first 2 1/2 seasons and I think there were probably 4 or 5 instances of brief nudity (though I didn't keep notes). There's non-stop profanity and a ton of drug use and some gruesome violence.
From what I hear "True Blood" is not gonna be your type of show.
Dexter has a lot of sex and nudity. There are a lot of dead or soon-to-be-dead naked people in the show.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Sex is pretty thoroughly interwoven into True Blood; I'd recommend that you just skip it. There is some sex in The Wire, but not a whole lot. It should be fairly easy for you to avoid it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think Dexter aired on CBS with certain bits scrubbed out. Perhaps it will return to broadcast TV?
I'd suggest a service that edits out the offensive stuff but with shows about serial killers, drug dealers, and sexy vampires, you might not end up seeing anything like the original show.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: HBO (and SHO) have a disproportionate number of good shows when compared to other networks/cable channels.
I have been seriously underwhelmed and unimpressed with almost all the HBO and Showtime shows people have told me I must watch.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: HBO (and SHO) have a disproportionate number of good shows when compared to other networks/cable channels.
I have been seriously underwhelmed and unimpressed with almost all the HBO and Showtime shows people have told me I must watch.
Lately that's true for me too, but Band of Brothers a few years ago was possibly the best experience I ever had with a television show.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Quality of show is a slippery metric.
What I'd say is that I am more easily engrossed by some of the premium cable shows, and it's partly because transgressing basic cable and broadcast standards appeals to the voyeur in me. But. It's also partly because broadcast and basic cable standards encourage tropes that trigger my disbelief. I get annoyed with all the skirting of edges, as it were.
However, NYPD Blue is probably as good a show as I've ever watched. (But note it was on the bleeding edge of what you could broadcast at the time.)
Edit: I'd have to add that I think HBO and Showtime have been more willing to experiment and make shows that are different. The Wire is different from other crime/cop shows I've seen.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: HBO (and SHO) have a disproportionate number of good shows when compared to other networks/cable channels.
I have been seriously underwhelmed and unimpressed with almost all the HBO and Showtime shows people have told me I must watch.
Solution: get friends with better taste. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
rivka: *shrug* different people different tastes. If everyone liked the same thing we wouldn't need freedom, choice and self discovery.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Which is really all I was saying to start with.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: HBO (and SHO) have a disproportionate number of good shows when compared to other networks/cable channels.
I have been seriously underwhelmed and unimpressed with almost all the HBO and Showtime shows people have told me I must watch.
Which shows have you watched and found underwhleming? Any you've watched and been whelmed by? :: curious ::
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Dexter has a lot of sex and nudity. There are a lot of dead or soon-to-be-dead naked people in the show.
When you're wrapped in saran, I don't think it counts as naked.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Band of brothers really was an amazing show i can't wait for Pacific. As for Trueblood I really like it but if you can't handle sexuality in it's various forms then you really need to avoid Trueblood as sex is completely tied into the plot.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've seen at least parts of episodes of the three mentioned in the OP and disliked 'em all.
I don't recall many others offhand, but probably would if you listed some. Sopranos was also definitely not for me.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I didn't like Sopranos after a small bit of exposure either. I just didn't like anybody on the screen, didn't want to spend time with them.
rivka, any specific diagnosis? Too raunchy? Boring? Bad acting?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't recall many others offhand, but probably would if you listed some. Sopranos was also definitely not for me.
What about Carnivale? If you've seen it and didn't care for it, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it. It's probably my favorite of the various HBO shows I've seen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I have certain religious restrictions against watching sexually suggestive and slightly pornographic material.
FWIW, my wife has similar sensibilities and Dexter and True Blood are both on my list of Shows That I Like That She's Never Going To See.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I've seen at least parts of episodes of the three mentioned in the OP and disliked 'em all.
Dexter definitely isn't a show that you're going to get into based on "parts of episodes". I'd probably say the same thing about True Blood. I think you'd need to watch two or three episodes, in order, from the beginning of the series, to get a good taste for them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Wire is the same. As, I think, is Rome -- they need to be started at the beginning and watched in order.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: rivka, any specific diagnosis? Too raunchy? Boring? Bad acting?
All of the above.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What about Carnivale?
Never heard of it. If the wikipedia summary is accurate, I am unlikely to go to any effort to watch it.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think you'd need to watch two or three episodes, in order, from the beginning of the series, to get a good taste for them.
Given my feelings on what I saw, why would I bother? It's not like I don't already have over 2 years' worth of various things on my Netflix list.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: What about Carnivale?
Never heard of it. If the wikipedia summary is accurate, I am unlikely to go to any effort to watch it.[/QB]
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to convince you to watch it; I was just interested to know what you thought of it if you had.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I figured.
Now, if you stuffed me in front of a screen showing it at the next get-together, you might get a more informed opinion. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The Wire is the same. As, I think, is Rome -- they need to be started at the beginning and watched in order.
That's true for all of the HBO series that I've followed, really. Each episode is to a chapter in a novel, and watching an episode here and there would be about as involving as taking the same approach with a book.
That said, watching a random episode will likely give someone trying to evaluate the series a good idea of how the series is put together. When I'm considering buying a book I'll often open it up to a random place and read a few pages to see if I like the author's style.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I figured.
Now, if you stuffed me in front of a screen showing it at the next get-together, you might get a more informed opinion.
Wish you were going to be coming to Montreal; I'd do just that. Well, I'd bring it along and prsent it as an option, anyway.
FWIW, Raja didn't really care for Carnivale.
Raja, was it the show's darkness that put you off? I can't quite remember.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The Wire is the same. As, I think, is Rome -- they need to be started at the beginning and watched in order.
That's true for all of the HBO series that I've followed, really. Each episode is to a chapter in a novel, and watching an episode here and there would be about as involving as taking the same approach with a book.
This doesn't always equal "good" of course. The Wire is genuinely good, I think. It bears re-watching and is highly rewarding as a viewing experience. Now, Rome was enjoyable the first time I saw it. It is positively boring to watch a second time- it creeps like a snail, is highly, *highly* repetitive, and you soon realize it's none-too-subtle on the second viewing. I swear, Rome has scenes in it, throughout the series, that could have been spliced in and reused from older episodes again and again- especially from the weakest plot thread, the Attia of the Julei household.
The melodrama is also grating the second time around.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Noemon -- No, I like dark. It was partly the creepiness, but I could have set that aside (edit: or, more accurately, could have lived with it). It was mostly the glacial pace.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My problem with Carnivale was the sense that the writers weren't working from a set of rules. I'm with OSC on this: good fantasy needs to have and stick to a defined reality.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Rivka, what kinds of shows do you like?
So far the only Showtime shows I've seen are Dexter and Dead Like Me, which were both very good (although Dead Like Me is kinda sluggish and I might not have liked it as much if half of my brain hadn't been doing artwork during the slow parts). Dexter is one of my favorite shows ever, and it absolutely has to be watched from the beginning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am so tempted to suggest that you watch Deadwood...but I won't.
Stay far, far away from Deadwood.
Is it just sex or is violence a problem, too?
BTW, for those without such sensitivities or those who can get past them, Deadwood is brilliant.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Breaking Bad. My favorite shows have all been Showtime or HBO shows (Deadwood, Rome, Carnivale, Oz, Six Feet Under, Dexter, etc) and Breaking Bad fits in right along side them. It feels like an HBO show, even though it's on AMC.
There are only a couple of instances of on-screen sex that I remember, though there is a lot of violence.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
yeah, Breaking Bad is good.
AMC also does Mad Men, which I've heard good things about, but I have only watched one episode and I was very sleepy at the time.
Good call.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:From the people who brought you There Will Be Blood, in partnership with TomDavidson,
There Will Almost Certainly Be Sex.
I would almost certainly watch this high quality Tom Davidson production!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I'd definitely hit that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I have certain religious restrictions against watching sexually suggestive and slightly pornographic material.
Hmm. Like, is the "and" pivotal here? If something is sexually suggestive but it is arguably within a creative intent divorced from pornographic intent, is that okay, or does nudity or even just sexually suggestive themes in and of themselves invalidate it?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I have certain religious restrictions against watching sexually suggestive and slightly pornographic material.
Hmm. Like, is the "and" pivotal here? If something is sexually suggestive but it is arguably within a creative intent divorced from pornographic intent, is that okay, or does nudity or even just sexually suggestive themes in and of themselves invalidate it?
For me, the biggest problem is nudity. I watch most shows on prime-time without a problem, even if they have something too raunchy for me, it is brief enough that i can get away with looking away or at least by skipping. It sounds like, of the shows I mentioned, only True Blood should be problematic.
I'm a little annoyed since I would have liked to watch Deadwood.
Yea, Rivka - I'm curious to know what shows you watch.
(thanks for all your responses)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante:
quote:From the people who brought you There Will Be Blood, in partnership with TomDavidson,
There Will Almost Certainly Be Sex.
I would almost certainly watch this high quality Tom Davidson production!
Hehehehe. I think I'd rather watch that than something called "There Will Be Blood." Blood is scary, Sex, not so much.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"There Will Be Blood" really bugged me. It was worth it to experience Daniel Day Lewis's
SPOILER
baptism.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It sounds like, of the shows I mentioned, only True Blood should be problematic.
I think the second season of Dexter may be problematic too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Rivka, what kinds of shows do you like?
Judging by my Netflix queue, shows from the 80s and 90s. (Currently re-watching The Cosby Show, in the past year or so have watched or re-watched Moonlighting, Remington Steele, Here Come the Brides, Cadfael, Northern Exposure, Doogie Hoswer, Lois & Clark, and Quantum Leap.)
More recent shows that I have enjoyed: Pushing Daisies, Brothers & Sisters, Grey's Anatomy, Scrubs, Big Bang Theory, Stargate (both), Private Practice. I love Teri Hatcher but find Desperate Housewives nauseating, annoying, and sometimes worse. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think the second season of Dexter may be problematic too.
While there is nudity (I think), isn't it rather brief?
But yeah, I can't help but think something is off when you can watch someone cut someone's jugular vein with a power tool, but can't see his girlfriend naked in the next scene...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It sounds like, of the shows I mentioned, only True Blood should be problematic.
I think the second season of Dexter may be problematic too.
So is the first season.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I think the second season of Dexter may be problematic too.
While there is nudity (I think), isn't it rather brief?
But yeah, I can't help but think something is off when you can watch someone cut someone's jugular vein with a power tool, but can't see his girlfriend naked in the next scene...
Yeah, again, I'd rather see the nudity. Nudity is natural and nice... and it's usually not as scary.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The question is a religious one. While I'd not like to see violence, and I'd probably look away bc I tend to be squeamish, I can't think of any prohibitions that are related to violence.
As for perspectives on nudity and stuff - I understand why someone would prefer nudity to violence. But again, speaking in the religious realms - nudity is more problematic than violence.
(It should be noted that one loses control more often when it comes to nudity as opposed to violence. It should also be noted that if one makes sure not to expose himself to nudity outside the bedroom, this makes the bedroom into a special place, and suffers little competition from the outside world. It should further be noted that violence in tv is staged, while nudity, is quite real.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:While there is nudity (I think), isn't it rather brief?
There are definitely nude sex scenes.
They weren't brief enough for my liking.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The question is a religious one. While I'd not like to see violence, and I'd probably look away bc I tend to be squeamish, I can't think of any prohibitions that are related to violence.
As for perspectives on nudity and stuff - I understand why someone would prefer nudity to violence. But again, speaking in the religious realms - nudity is more problematic than violence.
(It should be noted that one loses control more often when it comes to nudity as opposed to violence. It should also be noted that if one makes sure not to expose himself to nudity outside the bedroom, this makes the bedroom into a special place, and suffers little competition from the outside world. It should further be noted that violence in tv is staged, while nudity, is quite real.)
not always, sometimes prosthetics are involved... Wigs.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: (It should be noted that one loses control more often when it comes to nudity as opposed to violence. It should also be noted that if one makes sure not to expose himself to nudity outside the bedroom, this makes the bedroom into a special place, and suffers little competition from the outside world. It should further be noted that violence in tv is staged, while nudity, is quite real.)
I would say that if a person faces violence in real life, it's much more likely he loses control, than if he faces nudity in real life. Violence is an unnatural thing for a human, and it's pretty much genetically coded to us that we lose control in one way or another when we face it, whether it's irrational agression, irrational fear, etc.
Nudity on the other hand is something we can accept quite naturally, because it is a natural thing. Say, if you would go to a public swimming hall and see nude people in the shower, do you lose control? Normal people don't.
If you see your child nude, do you lose control? What about if your child attacks you violently, do you lose control? Which is the more likely scenario?
Also it seems that you're equalling nudity with sex here, when in fact the two are completely different things. The great majority of sex in TV or movies is non-nude. Where as both also frequently show nudity in non-sexual context. Is it fine for you to watch simulated sex scenes, when no nudity is involved? What about nudity, if the context is not sexual?
Your religion might make it not ok for you to see nude people. Which is fine. But trying to claim that nudity, even if it's in sexual context, makes people lose control, where as violence doesn't, is silly.
[ July 23, 2009, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:The great majority of sex in TV or movies is non-nude.
And in the cases of Teletubbies and Furries, can actually be an order of magnitude more disturbing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Violence is an unnatural thing for a human
Nonsense. Civilization is all about controlling and repressing that very natural urge.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm with Rivka. Nudity and violence aren't particularly unnatural for humanity, each in their measure. Though I think violence is worse, in absolute terms, that's just, like, my opinion man.
So I can't say that I agree with Armoth's "note"s, in my experience anyway, but different people are different and all.
And there is a continuum of ways to "control" issues with both, though not all methods work for all people, for various reasons.
-Bok
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Violence is an unnatural thing for a human
Nonsense. Civilization is all about controlling and repressing that very natural urge.
Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.
Yes, capability for violence is natural born. But the actual event of violence is not something most people feel natural or comfortable with. So while everything humans do is natural, as we are natural beings, some things feel less appealing for us, and therefore not as "natural" - Notice the quotes.
When violence happens, people lose their control - which was what the discussion was about. In an event of violence, our nervous system tends to go into shock, and mentally and physically we go into survival mode. Higher brain functions stop, we act more on instinct. We are more prone to strong, irrational aggression, or fear, or even total paralysis.
While extreme, irrational aggression, irrational fear and total paralysis are all natural states, they are also not "natural" for most people in our ordinary lives, if you get what I mean.
Nudity, or sex, are a lot more common phenomena's for us. and therefore more "natural". We don't tend to react to them in extreme manner, as we tend to do with violence.
When a human suffers violence, the natural reaction is to get out. Your body and mind both want to get away from the situation, from the hurt. This is a definite, all-encompassing urge. You likely can't even think of anything else, because your mind has been shut out. Higher brain functions are not working.
You can of course train for this, as for example some sportsmen or soldiers do, and violence becomes a more natural state as a result.
See - I wrote "natural" again. Because if by instinct your body and mind want to get away from a certain situation, the situation is not feeling "natural" per se.
As for civilization being all about controlling and repressing natural urges, we could debate about that... Civilization has a lot of benefits to it, common control of violent behavior being only one of them. But this sounds like an off-topic conversation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tuukka, as far as I can tell, you are saying that the culture in which you live (which, one should note, is not really the same as the culture in which Armoth or I spend most of our time) has decided that nudity is more natural than violence.
Rather a circular argument.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Tuukka, as far as I can tell, you are saying that the culture in which you live (which, one should note, is not really the same as the culture in which Armoth or I spend most of our time) has decided that nudity is more natural than violence.
Rather a circular argument.
I just edited my previous post to add some more comments, so there might some more clarification.
Anyway, a question:
Are you more comfortable with accidentally seeing another person being killed, or beaten up, than accidentally seeing him naked?
Which would raise a stronger, instict-driven, negative response from you?
Another question:
Would you be more comfortable being nude in a peaceful situation, or clothed in a situation where you are either killed or beaten up?
Which scenario would raise a stronger, instict-driven, negative response from you?
Depending on your answers, I think we can define whether you consider nudity or violence as the more "natural" state for a human. And like I explained in my previous post, I'm defining "natural" here in terms of whether a situation gives you a definite, all-encompassing urge of "I need to get away from this", or not. A kind of urge that shuts out everything else. You can go to shower, nude, even with someone else, and not get that feeling. Try going to shower with your clothes on and and let someone stab you around your body with a knife - Let's see if your body and mind are still feeling as if they are in a natural state.
I don't think there is going to be much difference in the answers, regardless of from which country someone comes from. Because human as an animal isn't really that different in different parts of the world. When you are being run by your instincts - and then you're really in your "natural" state - your priorities are going to be quite different than what they might seem when you are typing in your computer in the safety of your home. What's natural for us goes much deeper than whatever the current social politics of your country are. Because our nature - the animals we are - were created a long, long time ago.
Of course we are not driven purely by our genes. The society we live in also molds us. But while you can condition yourself to violence, to a certain degree, most people don't. The people who by their job, hobbies or background are used to violence and consider it a natural state that doesn't push them off balance, are a small minority. BTW, those people tend to be the first ones to tell you that violence is not a natural state for a human - It takes a lot of conditioning for violence to become natural. Ask any boxer how long it took, before stepping into the ring started to feel natural.
Compare them with the number of people who are temporarily nude almost every day, or who have normal sex lives, and who consider those both aspects of their lives to be perfectly natural, and you get the picture.
One is a tiny minority, the other is a massive majority. I don't think it's much different in your county.
Also I would remind, that the discussion was originally about what makes people "lose control" easier. Something you haven't really commented on.
[ July 23, 2009, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: My problem with Carnivale was the sense that the writers weren't working from a set of rules. I'm with OSC on this: good fantasy needs to have and stick to a defined reality.
I agree with OSC on that point too. However, I didn't feel like Carnivale violated that. The primary characters didn't know the set of rules that their world was operating under, but these were revealed as the show progressed, and episodes prior to the ones in which those rules were made explicit didn't violate those rules.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Are you more comfortable with accidentally seeing another person being killed, or beaten up, than accidentally seeing him naked?
Which would raise a stronger, instict-driven, negative response from you?
If we are talking about seeing a fictional person on TV, I suspect most Americans would have the stronger reaction to nudity. If we are talking about seeing it happen to a live person on the street, I suspect the killing would have the stronger reaction among most Americans. Therefore, I'd say context is very important to that question.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: My problem with Carnivale was the sense that the writers weren't working from a set of rules. I'm with OSC on this: good fantasy needs to have and stick to a defined reality.
I agree with OSC on that point too. However, I didn't feel like Carnivale violated that. The primary characters didn't know the set of rules that their world was operating under, but these were revealed as the show progressed, and episodes prior to the ones in which those rules were made explicit didn't violate those rules.
I guess it was a problem I had discerning reasons for things, then. I actually quite enjoyed the show and would have kept watching it if it wasn't canceled, which I didn't make clear before. I just was slightly annoyed by how I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on. (And it's been too long so that's all I remember, and not the specific events that gave me that impression.)
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Are you more comfortable with accidentally seeing another person being killed, or beaten up, than accidentally seeing him naked?
Which would raise a stronger, instict-driven, negative response from you?
If we are talking about seeing a fictional person on TV, I suspect most Americans would have the stronger reaction to nudity. If we are talking about seeing it happen to a live person on the street, I suspect the killing would have the stronger reaction among most Americans. Therefore, I'd say context is very important to that question.
I'm talking about real life - Not fiction.
I would suspect Rivka is talking about it in the same context, as she brought up the issue of civilization being all about controlling our natural violent urges. And I continued from there, to which she (he?) answered by bringing up the difference in our social background, etc.
Originally I started talking about this issue in reaction to Armoth's post about people "losing control", which referenced to people losing control in real life, not in fiction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(I am a she.)
If you think your reactions in real life are that divorced from your reactions to media, then I would say that's part of the problem.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (I am a she.)
If you think your reactions in real life are that divorced from your reactions to media, then I would say that's part of the problem.
If you think they are the same, I think that's a much bigger problem, and a very unrealistic stand to take. I also think it speaks of inexperience in life, if you assume that fictional TV violence and sex are the same as real life violence, or real life sex.
It's much different to see a fictional person killed on TV, than it is to see a real person get killed next to you. It's much different to watch a sex scene on TV, than to actually make love yourself. It's much different to watch a fictional fight on screen, than to actually fight yourself.
It's not just apples and oranges. The two things are so completely worlds apart, that they are similar only on a very superficial level.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I guess it was a problem I had discerning reasons for things, then. I actually quite enjoyed the show and would have kept watching it if it wasn't canceled, which I didn't make clear before. I just was slightly annoyed by how I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on. (And it's been too long so that's all I remember, and not the specific events that gave me that impression.)
My first time through the show I definitely found it confusing, but for some reason I approached it as a puzzle to be untangled rather than as an irritant.
Something that I think is interesting is the fact that the dream sequence at the beginning of the first episode contains shots from the entire first season and possibly (it's been a while, and I'm not completely trusting my memory here) from the second season as well. The whole thing was very tightly put together. Carnivale is second only to Firefly in the "shows that, if I were Emperor of the TeeVees, I would have resurrected" category.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hurm. Civilization has it's own underlying problems it's too civilized to deal with.
And the Sopranos was a quality show, but there was quite a bit of sex in it and disturbing violence, especially in the last season. *Shudder* I liked OZ a lot, but the violence there was also disturbing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:If you think they are the same
Good thing I didn't say that.
That's the third time (at least) you've completely twisted what I did say to mean something quite different, and this conversation started with you doing the same thing with Armoth. (I'm sure you feel I'm doing something similar.)
I don't see continuing this as likely to be productive.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:If you think they are the same
Good thing I didn't say that.
That's the third time (at least) you've completely twisted what I did say to mean something quite different, and this conversation started with you doing the same thing with Armoth. (I'm sure you feel I'm doing something similar.)
I don't see continuing this as likely to be productive.
I wonder what are the two previous times. Also I wonder how I twisted what Armoth said.
As far as I can see, I have answered accordingly to your posts. If you meant something else in them, perhaps you should try to expand on your opinion and show me where I misinterpreted you, instead of just accusing me of twisting other people's words.
When I felt that you had misinterpreted my meaning, I expanded on my point, to make myself better understood. The more sparse one's messages are, the easier it is to misinterpret their meaning.
Also notice "if" in my post. I didn't claim you think in the manner I described, no more than you claimed "If you think your reactions in real life are that divorced from your reactions to media, then I would say that's part of the problem." to be my opinion.
If you say that people's reactions to real life sex and violence aren't "that divorced" from their reactions to sex and violence in media, what possible conclusion could I make, except to assume that you think people's reactions to the two (real life and media) are quite similar?
And in response I made a point that the two are worlds apart. The are not similar at all. So I did answer your point. I made a direct counter-argument.
But let me now rephrase (And I'm still keeping the "if"):
If you think the reactions are similar, I think that's a very unrealistic stand to take.
...The rest of my argument remains the same.
[ July 23, 2009, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
And to continue a bit on this accusation that I twist other people's words. Granted, I can't be 100% sure I understood Armoth's post correctly. Maybe you can explain it to me, since you think I completely twisted his words?
Anyway, here are your messages I answered:
"Nonsense. Civilization is all about controlling and repressing that very natural urge.
To which I simply answered how I defined the world "natural" in the context of this discussion. I didn't disagree with you in any way, and I didn't even debate with you.
"Tuukka, as far as I can tell, you are saying that the culture in which you live (which, one should note, is not really the same as the culture in which Armoth or I spend most of our time) has decided that nudity is more natural than violence. Rather a circular argument."
...To which I answered in detail why I think for humans feel nudity to be more natural, regardless of which culture they live in. It's a direct answer to the point you raised in your post.
I also asked you questions, but you chose to not answer them.
"If you think your reactions in real life are that divorced from your reactions to media, then I would say that's part of the problem."
...To which I answered why I believe that people's reactions to things like violence, sex and nudity are completely different if they happen in media, as opposed to real life.
Again, a direct answer to the point you raised in your message.
Frankly, I fail to see where I have completely twisted your words, not to even mention that I have supposedly done it at least three times to you so far.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (I am a she.)
If you think your reactions in real life are that divorced from your reactions to media, then I would say that's part of the problem.
Why? Most people, adults at least are more than capable of telling the difference between fantasy and reality. You see someone slapped on a tv show and then go out to see someone slapped in front of you in real life and you will get a very different response. As to loosing control I would say that the vast, even overwhelming majority of people would lose control in confronted by violence but not by nudity. Really the only way I could see a person losing control when seeing nudity is if they were subject to severe sexual abuse or intoxicated. Or maybe really serious mental abuse. But violence? Even people who are trained to handle violence in a sense lose control sense they are trained to handle it with what amounts to a preprogramed reflex to it.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Hurm. Civilization has it's own underlying problems it's too civilized to deal with.
And the Sopranos was a quality show, but there was quite a bit of sex in it and disturbing violence, especially in the last season. *Shudder* I liked OZ a lot, but the violence there was also disturbing.
It was meant to be.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I kinda lost track about what is going on.
Let me see if I can better explain myself.
In society, I think violence is more of a bad thing than nudity.
(To answer a previously posed issue - Nudity isn't the only issue, my religious issue stems from anything that brings one to think lustful thoughts - nudity in a painting doesn't really do that to me, but nudity at a public pool, or even a girl in her bathing suit, depending on how she looks, does bring ANY guy to lustful thoughts. So yea, a tv show where they aren't nude but you can see partial nudity and much sexually suggestive material, that is a problem for me as well).
Right, so violence is worse than nudity. But that doesn't mean that violence portrayed on television is worse. I am not supposed to be violent, but I'm also not supposed to be sexually intimate, in thought or deed, with anyone other than my wife.
Thankfully, when observing violence, I don't bring that home with me, in thought our deed. If I did, I'd start avoiding violence as well. However, I AM affected by sex in TV and movies.
Hope that clarified some things. I'll try and check back more often to answer your questions because I kinda got lost in the jumble above.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I kinda lost track about what is going on.
Let me see if I can better explain myself.
In society, I think violence is more of a bad thing than nudity.
(To answer a previously posed issue - Nudity isn't the only issue, my religious issue stems from anything that brings one to think lustful thoughts - nudity in a painting doesn't really do that to me, but nudity at a public pool, or even a girl in her bathing suit, depending on how she looks, does bring ANY guy to lustful thoughts. So yea, a tv show where they aren't nude but you can see partial nudity and much sexually suggestive material, that is a problem for me as well).
Right, so violence is worse than nudity. But that doesn't mean that violence portrayed on television is worse. I am not supposed to be violent, but I'm also not supposed to be sexually intimate, in thought or deed, with anyone other than my wife.
Thankfully, when observing violence, I don't bring that home with me, in thought our deed. If I did, I'd start avoiding violence as well. However, I AM affected by sex in TV and movies.
Hope that clarified some things. I'll try and check back more often to answer your questions because I kinda got lost in the jumble above.
That clarifies your point, thanks.
I can see what you mean by being more influenced by sex in TV and movies. People are generally aware that violence is "wrong" and they don't find it natural. So the fictional violence doesn't really influence our behavior, because we don't want to be violent anyway.
But most of us do want to be sexual beings, and we want to do sex, whether it's with our wife, or with someone else. So it's easier to be influenced by fictional sex. Do I have to do that in bed, to fullfill the demands of my partner? Is that what she wants as well? Am I good enough? Would I be more attractive if I would look and behave like that? Is that what everyone does? And so on.
I'm not sure whether you are referring to that kind of influence. Maybe you are just uncomfortable becoming sexually excited by someone else than your wife, or it might be some completely other reason.
But I can say personally that while on-screen violence has had very little impact on me, on-screen sex has definitely adjusted what I think about sex.
I wouldn't equate it with "losing control", as that's not how fictional sex makes me feel. On the other hand in real sex, losing control I think is crucial to a happy sex life, at least for me
But I think I misinterpreted what you meant with those words, anyway.
This all however doesn't mean I would be against on-screen sex or nudity in any way. I just would prefer it to be more realistic, as generally TV and movie sex has nothing to do with real sex, and gives people a really strange and distorted idea of what sex is really like, or how it's supposed to be like.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Hurm. Civilization has it's own underlying problems it's too civilized to deal with.
And the Sopranos was a quality show, but there was quite a bit of sex in it and disturbing violence, especially in the last season. *Shudder* I liked OZ a lot, but the violence there was also disturbing.
It was meant to be.
?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: In society, I think violence is more of a bad thing than nudity.
I always find it kinda blink-blink sorta weird when older social mores make nudity and sexuality essentially more deviant even to witness than .. well, violence and killing. It's even wormed its way into regulatory boards and the communal Freak Out over things such as a second and a half of butt in Mass Effect.
When about 60% of that potentially 50-100 hour game is pretty literally spent mowing through rows of people.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Eh, they're mostly robots anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I know when re-cutting movies for the North American market, people are a lot more sensitive about animals and children dying (or even being injured) so that sometimes has to be trimmed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: I dunno, the different physiological effects that seeing somebody killed, and seeing a woman flaunting her boobs have on me is quite stark.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Hurm. Civilization has it's own underlying problems it's too civilized to deal with.
And the Sopranos was a quality show, but there was quite a bit of sex in it and disturbing violence, especially in the last season. *Shudder* I liked OZ a lot, but the violence there was also disturbing.
It was meant to be.
?
Sorry to elaborate the violence on OZ was meant to disturb. When a viewer finds that part of the show disturbing the writers are getting their point across.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Both sex and violence are rather deeply embedded in any primate psyche. But with sex, there's a "me-too" reaction that you don't get with violence; you don't generally get any urge to join in if you see a fight, unless your own family are losing it. But we react on a very deep level to seeing sex; we even react to seeing bonobos having sex. (Blood flow to genitals, to be specific.) So there is perhaps an argument to be made that sex - and non-sexual nudity does count - is more invasive, if that's the word I want, than violence.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Well if you see someone you find attractive a person may blush or become aroused but people don't lose control, well sane people don't. With violence just about everyone goes into shock. They lose the ability to act rationally at all. Their are some people who can keep their cool or fall back on training but they are in the minority.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Well if you see someone you find attractive a person may blush or become aroused but people don't lose control, well sane people don't. With violence just about everyone goes into shock. They lose the ability to act rationally at all. Their are some people who can keep their cool or fall back on training but they are in the minority.
Define, "lose control." I'd say there are far more males and females who see a sex scene in a show who then go off and masturbate or have sex with their SO than there are those who see a violent act committed on television and then suddenly react violently.
No matter how you slice it, on television people know the violence is scripted and staged. When actors take their clothes off and get naked, that's not staged, that's their actual bodies. Even if the sex is staged and the actors don't have feelings for each other, the physiological response to seeing sex taking place is stronger than violence. There are in fact indy films now where the sex scenes are not even staged, they actually take place between the actors and it's done in the name of "genuineness and realism." Now sure, Harrison Ford had Gary Oldman actually punch him in the movie Air Force One, but nobody actually believes that Ford and Oldman were really fighting. For some reason sex, just does not work that way, I don't see why fair has anything to do with it. Sex and violence are different beasts.
edited for some grammar and spelling.
[ July 24, 2009, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Now sure, Harrison Ford had Gary Oldman actually punch him in the movie Air Force One, but nobody actually believes that Ford and Oldman were really fighting.
What about Harrison and Gary's sex scene?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Totally different style of punching.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Define, "lose control." I'd say there are far more males and females who see a sex scene in a show who then go off and masturbate or have sex with their SO than there are those who see a violent act committed on television and then suddenly react violently.
Unfair. If you're using masturbation as a proxy for sex, then you have to consider certain video games (or simply running around as a kid and playing cowboys and indians) as a proxy for violence.
And with those in the picture, I'd say that the balance is no longer clear.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Sorry to elaborate the violence on OZ was meant to disturb. When a viewer finds that part of the show disturbing the writers are getting their point across.
In fact, the writers would intentionally mislead the audience by pretending to develop a certain character's story arc, only to kill them in the very next scene. They actually did this kind of thing for sport- to see how abruptly they could turn the story on its head.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Define, "lose control." I'd say there are far more males and females who see a sex scene in a show who then go off and masturbate or have sex with their SO than there are those who see a violent act committed on television and then suddenly react violently.
Unfair. If you're using masturbation as a proxy for sex, then you have to consider certain video games (or simply running around as a kid and playing cowboys and indians) as a proxy for violence.
And with those in the picture, I'd say that the balance is no longer clear.
Actually, there's a point of view from which masturbation (or even lustful thoughts) are considered unacceptable, but play fighting is considered OK, while real violence would not be OK. While I don't share that point of view, even I see a lot more in common between masturbation and sex than I see between any form of pretend violence and actual violence. To use an example, I wouldn't expect someone with no sex drive to masturbate, but I would expect someone with no drive to hurt a real person to still play video games where violence is portrayed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Define, "lose control." I'd say there are far more males and females who see a sex scene in a show who then go off and masturbate or have sex with their SO than there are those who see a violent act committed on television and then suddenly react violently.
Unfair. If you're using masturbation as a proxy for sex, then you have to consider certain video games (or simply running around as a kid and playing cowboys and indians) as a proxy for violence.
And with those in the picture, I'd say that the balance is no longer clear.
I think masturbation is closer to sex, and remember I also said I could see people engaging in sex after witnessing it. Did people watch Fight Club and decide to join such a club? I don't know. Granted some cultures are more rugged than others, people who are just tussling might actually punch or significantly strike each other and still call it "playing." The line might indeed be blurred there.
Generally speaking, assuming, and I think this is a fair assumption, people see more acts of violence than sex, they still engage in sexual activities far more often than they engage in violent ones.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is not one of those arguments that either of you is going to convince the other- it's clearly a matter of opinion.
That said, I agree with scifi, in the sense that with sexual or violent images, I think we all experience attraction or excitement by viewing them, depending on our states of mind. But drive is different- we have a real biological drive towards sex, but a less well defined drive towards violence. Violence is a natural reaction to perceived threat- if you can experience violence, as in a video game or a movie, and not experience the threat, then who can say what that is supposed to do? We've had literature containing sex and violence for our entire recorded history, and yet literary movements have never been shown to be prime movers in cultural violence- the arts always lag behind in this, they don't drive the culture forward. It may often appear, as with fascism or Marxism, that the known works of the period encouraged the "zeitgeist," but I find it difficult to credit, considering the majority of people in any given period of any culture's history are not acquainted with any literary cannon, especially not a current one. Factors that actually do effect everyone, like economics, food, and climate are always better answers for "why?"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
scifibum: Why?
Why not just play the Sims or Civilization or any number of non-violent games?
I'd say that the Doom, Quake, GTA, and similar games really do tap into (and help control) a drive for violence even if many won't admit it. Going step a further, I'd even say some developers are specifically acknowledging and taking advantage of this drive such as those behind America's Army.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Mucus - I think you have a point there, that pretend violence taps into real aggressive tendencies.
But just judging by my own sensations and frame of mind,
(this is your SOLE TMI warning, folks)...
I feel a lot closer to having sex when masturbating, let's call it about 50% the same, than I feel close to violently punching someone when playing Wolfenstein (more like 5% the same). And that's just compared to punching; I have no basis to compare playing a game to actually killing a lot of people. I can only guess but I think it's got to be such a vastly disparate experience that it's not even comparable, whereas I DO find masturbation and sex highly comparable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When actors take their clothes off and get naked, that's not staged, that's their actual bodies. Even if the sex is staged and the actors don't have feelings for each other, the physiological response to seeing sex taking place is stronger than violence.
Most of the sex on TV and film is more staged and less "real" - and more CGI - than you might imagine.
I would bet that the actors in sex scenes feel real arousal less often than the actors in fight scenes feel real pain.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed, there's an interesting story:
quote:In Ashes of Time, cast as a martial-arts scoundrel, he ably anchored a film of top Chinese stars and rapturous visual splendor. In the not-so-gay drama Happy Together he taught Tony Leung Chiu-wai how an actor prepares.
The film opens with a stark scene of the two main characters having sex. "When we tried to shoot the love scene it really shocked Tony," Cheung recalls. "He refused to do it. For two days he was miserable, lying on his bed. So I went up to him and said, 'Look at me, Tony, I've gone through so many scenes kissing, touching girls, grabbing breasts, do you think I really enjoyed it? Just treat it as a job, a normal love scene. I'm not going to fall in love with you, and I don't want you to really have sex with me. You're not my type.' So he agreed to do the scene."
Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Jackie Chan gets a pretty huge rush from doing his own stunts and fights.
scifibum: Maybe thats just desensitization. Maybe if we played games with hundreds of sex incidents (rather than games with hundreds of incidents of violence), it would be similarly unsurprising.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My view on sex versus violence- I believe that sex is a good thing (under the right circumstances) and while I don't really want to think about it, I hope when my daughter is older and married, she will have a fulfilling sex life. On the other hand, I never want her to engage in violent activity. Therefore, if I have to pick, I'd rather her see sex then violence.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: scifibum: Maybe thats just desensitization. Maybe if we played games with hundreds of sex incidents (rather than games with hundreds of incidents of violence), it would be similarly unsurprising.
I've lost track of what you are trying to say.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Scholarette - Your assumption is that sex is better than violence so sex on tv is better than violence on tv.
But what we have been trying to establish is that sex hits home a lot harder than violence when observed on tv. At first glance, you can take a logical ideological view - symbolically, since violence is worse than sex, we should portray more sex than violence on tv. But a deeper argument is that violence on tv is always staged (as opposed to sex where you do see actually nudity), and that because of our drives and personalities, sex has more of an effect on us on screen than does violence.
Bringing it back to the religious element, as we were defining "losing control" - Religiously, for me at least, it is forbidden to think sexual thoughts outside of your relationship with your spouse. It is viewed as an inappropriate expression of your creative energy that should be limited to the special relationship you have with your spouse. As such, sex on tv is again more invasive because it brings one to experience such "forbidden" thoughts.
It is also forbidden to fantasize about performing violence against another person. However, viewing violence on tv almost never translates to such a transgression, even if one were to think cool martial arts moves.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
scifibum:
Ok, let me back-track a bit.
The basic line of argument seems to be, movies have both sex and violence. Why should we restrict sex more than violence in movies? Because the sex is more compelling and can provoke a greater response.
What I'm wondering is maybe the whole thing is reversed. As a society, we've "decided" that violence is more acceptable than sex. Consider the oddly high position of soldier in the American social hierarchy compared to the prostitute. (This does not always have to be the case, there were cultures where soldiers had a very low social standing and prostitutes actually higher than them.)
Since violence is more acceptable, we're more free to indulge in simulated violence (i.e. violent movies and video games) rather than simulated sex (i.e. movies and video games with sex). As a result, there is a heck of a lot more of it.
As a corollary, maybe the fact that you feel masturbation is more similar to sex is a consequence of the culture. Maybe in a culture where the reverse of the above is true, it would be the violence that would be more shocking/bodily affecting and the sex that would be common and un-shocking.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:As a corollary, maybe the fact that you feel masturbation is more similar to sex is a consequence of the culture. Maybe in a culture where the reverse of the above is true, it would be the violence that would be more shocking/bodily affecting and the sex that would be common and un-shocking.
Historically speaking, does such a culture exist? And if not, is that evidence that sex has tended to provoke a greater response than violence and hence is kept on a tighter leash?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Mucus, thanks for clarifying. I don't know if you're on to something or not, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Slow down a moment. What's being compared here? If I understood the discussion correctly, the comparison is "masturbation is more similar to sex, than watching violence is to real violence". I cannot believe that this is a cultural construct. One involves the whole body, with sensory feedback all over the place; the other involves only vision, with some large dose of suspension of disbelief. The amount of brain regions involved is way smaller. The correct comparison, I think, is to either reduce the masturbation to watching sex scenes, or else upgrade the violence-watching to taking part in martial arts competitions, or boxing, or something. Would anyone claim that masturbation is more similar to sex than a boxing match is to real, killing violence? (Not watching a boxing match, you understand, but being one of the men exchanging blows.) That comparison might reasonably depend on cultural factors. Let's note, boxing has been banned on occasion, although back then the sport was a bit more brutal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Mucus posited that playing Cowboys and Indians after watching violence take place on television was a more apt comparison.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, I missed that. I feel boxing is still better, though.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When actors take their clothes off and get naked, that's not staged, that's their actual bodies. Even if the sex is staged and the actors don't have feelings for each other, the physiological response to seeing sex taking place is stronger than violence.
Most of the sex on TV and film is more staged and less "real" - and more CGI - than you might imagine.
I would bet that the actors in sex scenes feel real arousal less often than the actors in fight scenes feel real pain.
Even in porn the sex is more staged than one would think. Yes the actors do preform sex acts on each other but trick angles, creative editing, multiple takes and..well "stuntmen" make the whole affair very different from what you are witnessing on screen.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus:
quote:As a corollary, maybe the fact that you feel masturbation is more similar to sex is a consequence of the culture. Maybe in a culture where the reverse of the above is true, it would be the violence that would be more shocking/bodily affecting and the sex that would be common and un-shocking.
Historically speaking, does such a culture exist? And if not, is that evidence that sex has tended to provoke a greater response than violence and hence is kept on a tighter leash?
There have been at least tribal cultures, where nudity was standard, and violence was rare. And these cultures have existed during the last century, I'm pretty sure in some still survive, in places like South-America and the Pacific Islands.
In my understanding they've also often have had a pretty easy-going attitude towards sexual acts.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Indeed, there's an interesting story:
quote:In Ashes of Time, cast as a martial-arts scoundrel, he ably anchored a film of top Chinese stars and rapturous visual splendor. In the not-so-gay drama Happy Together he taught Tony Leung Chiu-wai how an actor prepares.
The film opens with a stark scene of the two main characters having sex. "When we tried to shoot the love scene it really shocked Tony," Cheung recalls. "He refused to do it. For two days he was miserable, lying on his bed. So I went up to him and said, 'Look at me, Tony, I've gone through so many scenes kissing, touching girls, grabbing breasts, do you think I really enjoyed it? Just treat it as a job, a normal love scene. I'm not going to fall in love with you, and I don't want you to really have sex with me. You're not my type.' So he agreed to do the scene."
Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Jackie Chan gets a pretty huge rush from doing his own stunts and fights.
scifibum: Maybe thats just desensitization. Maybe if we played games with hundreds of sex incidents (rather than games with hundreds of incidents of violence), it would be similarly unsurprising.
Well if you see someone say a roomate or friend nude the first time you may check them out or get embarrassed but you see them nude a few more times and you don't even notice anymore. Same goes in school when you shower with you classmates. So yes there is a desensitization. But I would still say in real life seeing a nude person doesn't make you lose control while encountering violence in real life certainly does.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Also, I agree with Mucus' point: If nudity was common and everywhere around us, it wouldn't raise any particular sexual feelings. It's not possible to be in heat 24/7.
If every woman you see on the street would have bare breasts, seeing bare breast simply wouldn't be that exciting, or titillating anymore.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus:
quote:As a corollary, maybe the fact that you feel masturbation is more similar to sex is a consequence of the culture. Maybe in a culture where the reverse of the above is true, it would be the violence that would be more shocking/bodily affecting and the sex that would be common and un-shocking.
Historically speaking, does such a culture exist? And if not, is that evidence that sex has tended to provoke a greater response than violence and hence is kept on a tighter leash?
There have been at least tribal cultures, where nudity was standard, and violence was rare. And these cultures have existed during the last century, I'm pretty sure in some still survive, in places like South-America and the Pacific Islands.
In my understanding they've also often have had a pretty easy-going attitude towards sexual acts.
Could you be a bit more specific? Essentially every single culture that exists today began as a "tribal culture." Thousands more have existed without any record of their attitudes or social mores.
quote:If every woman you see on the street would have bare breasts, seeing bare breast simply wouldn't be that exciting, or titillating anymore.
Tahitians traditionally did not cover their women's breasts, and yet their attitudes concerning sex were significantly more relaxed than say Captain Bligh and the crew of The Bounty.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Scholarette - Your assumption is that sex is better than violence so sex on tv is better than violence on tv.
But what we have been trying to establish is that sex hits home a lot harder than violence when observed on tv. At first glance, you can take a logical ideological view - symbolically, since violence is worse than sex, we should portray more sex than violence on tv. But a deeper argument is that violence on tv is always staged (as opposed to sex where you do see actually nudity), and that because of our drives and personalities, sex has more of an effect on us on screen than does violence.
Bringing it back to the religious element, as we were defining "losing control" - Religiously, for me at least, it is forbidden to think sexual thoughts outside of your relationship with your spouse. It is viewed as an inappropriate expression of your creative energy that should be limited to the special relationship you have with your spouse. As such, sex on tv is again more invasive because it brings one to experience such "forbidden" thoughts.
It is also forbidden to fantasize about performing violence against another person. However, viewing violence on tv almost never translates to such a transgression, even if one were to think cool martial arts moves.
I have a hard time understanding this point of view. It's not really possible to control your thoughts. The important thing is to control your actions. So what if you think someone is cute as long as you don't stray? If someone can't resist everyday temptation then do they really love their partner? Yes I understand that some people have this belief as is their right. In my opinion the danger with it is that people with that belief so often try to censor what others see because they don't want to be temped themselves.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus:
quote:As a corollary, maybe the fact that you feel masturbation is more similar to sex is a consequence of the culture. Maybe in a culture where the reverse of the above is true, it would be the violence that would be more shocking/bodily affecting and the sex that would be common and un-shocking.
Historically speaking, does such a culture exist? And if not, is that evidence that sex has tended to provoke a greater response than violence and hence is kept on a tighter leash?
There have been at least tribal cultures, where nudity was standard, and violence was rare. And these cultures have existed during the last century, I'm pretty sure in some still survive, in places like South-America and the Pacific Islands.
In my understanding they've also often have had a pretty easy-going attitude towards sexual acts.
Could you be a bit more specific? Essentially every single culture that exists today began as a "tribal culture." Thousands more have existed without any record of their attitudes or social mores.
Have you ever seen any documentaries on modern world tribal cultures? People who live a very primitive life in the jungle. There are still fairly many people living like that, in South-America, Africa and Pacific Islands at least. Of course those tribal cultures are slowly dying away, but they still exist, and are gonna exist for some time.
If you've seen those documentaries, you might have noticed that in many villages just about all women walk around bare-breasted. They also breast-feed in the plain sight of everyone. Children are very often completely nude. Most adults cover their genitalia, but even to that there are exceptions, and people don't thing it's a big deal that a man, or a woman, is completely nude in plain sight of everyone.
I've also read a lot of articles about the lifestyles of different, modern world tribal cultures. I can google for links, if needed.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Tahitians traditionally did not cover their women's breasts, and yet their attitudes concerning sex were significantly more relaxed than say Captain Bligh and the crew of The Bounty. [/QB]
What do you mean? I'm not familiar with the story.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think nudity itself is the issue, it's the presence of titillating material in entertainment that we're discussing. If everyone was nude all the time then we might be concerned about the wearing of latex masks or whatever thing was sexy or titillating and not present in everyday public life that showed up in entertainment.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: If every woman you see on the street would have bare breasts, seeing bare breast simply wouldn't be that exciting, or titillating anymore.
So when you think about it, everybody should wear burkas, so that there would be a massive thrill to getting naked.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I have a hard time understanding this point of view. It's not really possible to control your thoughts. The important thing is to control your actions. So what if you think someone is cute as long as you don't stray? If someone can't resist everyday temptation then do they really love their partner? Yes I understand that some people have this belief as is their right. In my opinion the danger with it is that people with that belief so often try to censor what others see because they don't want to be temped themselves.
I may be putting words in Armoth's mouth here, but let me give this a try.
First of all, I disagree that you can't control your thoughts. It's a lot harder than controlling your actions, but it is possible, through practice to try and think about other things or nothing at all. (It's reasonably common among men who can't afford to be visibly "aroused" at the moment to try and think about, say, dying puppies or something to keep the hormones in check).
That said, I think this is a different situation. It's hard to control your thoughts when confronted with particular stimuli, BUT it's easier to control said stimuli. When you see an attractive, sexual person, you're going to have an emotional response. And that's not inherently a bad thing (well, Armoth might think so but I don't think it's the main point he was going for).
The points is not to avoid a bad thought ("i.e. wow look at that pair of legs"). The point is to encourage a particular kind of good thought ("Wow, look at my wife, the most amazingly beautiful woman in the world"). Avoiding other sources of sexual stimulation creates an emotional connection with your spouse that is far more intense than if such stimulation was common in your life.
I think that's the point. I have no idea whether it really works out that way, or whether it's worth the effort, but I don't think it's a crazy idea.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yeah, Raymond got it right, i think for the most part anyway.
1) I do believe you can control thoughts. It is a major premise of my religion, and trust me - I'd be outta here ages ago if it weren't possible. It is difficult, but it is an amazing feeling when you can control thoughts to the level that you can. You feel like you can master the self.
2) You are supposed to avoid bad thoughts. But what makes a thought "bad?" Sex isn't EVIL. So the religious concept of bad thoughts is that sex is a natural and beautiful thing, but it is sanctified, set aside specifically for your spouse, the one you love and whom is special to you. The main act is the powerful love between husband and wife - sex, we believe, is an incredibly powerful physical pleasure that serves as the background to the beautiful emotional intimacy in teh relationship. Thus, all other sexual expressions are deemed bad because they are "wasteful."
Looking outside your marriage for sexual stimulus cheapens the special nature of your own marriage.
And you are all correct, seeing breasts everyday would make it not titillating to see them again. However, we would like them to remain titillating - so that they can be used as a powerful component of sex, (this is so weird as I'm typing this) of the intimacy between husband and wife.
It is an entirely different culture that I can imagine that someone who isn't in would be totally foreign to. But we try not to expose ourselves to sex outside the bedroom for this reason.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Great explanation Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 1) I do believe you can control thoughts. It is a major premise of my religion
Explain?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.
quote:Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha.
Setting aside Amroth's religious motivations for controlling one's thoughts, surely you can imagine some reasons that aren't* stupid, dangerous, or biddable for controlling one's thoughts?
At an extreme end of things, certainly it could prove very worthwhile for someone with certain especially strong impulses generally regarded as bad-drug addiction, for example.
ETA: *Not that I think they are, of course, but any conversation remotely approaching religious concerns with KoM is going to include the idea that they are, as reliable as a Swiss watch.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yea. Who needs religion in this argument?
Controlling thoughts and controlling actions are not very far apart.
Both are difficult, thought not impossible. In fact, many diet books, or self-help books will teach you not only to control your actions, to get yourself to the gym, or to spend more time with your kids, but to control your thoughts. Positive thinking, motivation, clarity of identity, self-esteem.
All things are dependent on introspection, meditation, spending time with yourself and reminding yourself of your values. Because humans are flawed - we forget ourselves in our desires, and to express our most ideal selves, we need to overcome the other conflicting identities within us.
Religion has many such ideal goals - stuff that gets in the way of natural and base desires. For instance, I often have to keep my negative opinions to myself lest I transgress the prohibition on speaking ill of your fellow man. I probably fail more often than I succeed. There, I have conflicting desires - the desire to talk about a disloyal friend, or my crazy parents, and the desire to not dramatize a problem by externalizing it, and not to color other people's opinions of said individuals through hearsay and gossip. If I remind myself that I truly desire the latter, it helps me to not desire the former.
Also, God hates science and global warming, so we have to control our thoughts about that too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure, but I'm not about to let that get in the way of a literary-allusion snark. Further, although the Dark Arts can in principle be used for good purposes, they will always end by corrupting the user.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also, God hates science and global warming, so we have to control our thoughts about that too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Also, God hates science and global warming, so we have to control our thoughts about that too.
Quite so. I invite you to think about this sentence for half a minute.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty sure it was sarcastic, and I think the rest of his post made pretty decent sense from a secular perspective.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: I completely agree, there are plenty of good reasons for controlling one's thoughts even if we are removing religion from the equation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm pretty sure it was sarcastic, and I think the rest of his post made pretty decent sense from a secular perspective.
And yet... somehow... it turns out that opposition to global warming and to science in general is very strongly correlated with religion. The Dark Side is subtle, and works all the better when it is mocked.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
BB,RA - thanks.
KoM, I'll posit that many who have issues with science and global warming are not skilled at the type of thought-control I am speaking of.
Most of those people are "opiate of the masses" folks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure, but I'm not about to let that get in the way of a literary-allusion snark. Further, although the Dark Arts can in principle be used for good purposes, they will always end by corrupting the user.
While that was also literary-allusion snark, it was also a pretty accurate (though stylized) representation of your own beliefs, KoM.
Basically anything you could care to name, if applied too widely, will be a bad thing, KoM. Your case against thought control, such as it is, is pretty darn feeble so far.
quote:And yet... somehow... it turns out that opposition to global warming and to science in general is very strongly correlated with religion. The Dark Side is subtle, and works all the better when it is mocked.
Oh, so now we've got correlation. Isn't there a saying about the link between correlation and some other thing, starts with a 'c' rhymes with 'ausation'?
---
quote:Most of those people are "opiate of the masses" folks.
Heh, good luck arguing that distinction, dude:)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Armoth: I completely agree, there are plenty of good reasons for controlling one's thoughts even if we are removing religion from the equation.
My husband is reading a book right now kind of on thought control. One of the major claims is that by trying to avoid thinking about something, you actually end up spending more time thinking about it. If you tell someone to not think about pink elephants for 2 minutes, they are going to think about pink elephants. And then after that, you tell them to think about whatever they want, they still think about pink elephants.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Oh, so now we've got correlation. Isn't there a saying about the link between correlation and some other thing, starts with a 'c' rhymes with 'ausation'?
Yes, yes, the first refuge of the internet arguer. If you have a correlation between A and B, it does not follow that A causes B; fine. But you do have to pick from these options:
a) A causes B (the correlation is causation) b) B causes A (the correlation is causation) c) Both are caused by a third factor (in which case there is a correlation you missed, and that correlation is causation) d) Your correlation is a statistical artifact.
Setting 'A' to 'thought control' and B to 'religion', which of the options would you like to argue for?
quote: If you tell someone to not think about pink elephants for 2 minutes, they are going to think about pink elephants.
This only shows the weakness of bad thought control. If you genuinely wanted someone not to think about pink elephants, you would tell them to think about green mosquitos instead. Or just shut up and let them think of whatever.
quote:I'll posit that many who have issues with science and global warming are not skilled at the type of thought-control I am speaking of.
They are certainly very skilled, as a general rule, at looking only at evidence they agree with.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would react negatively to "controlling" my thoughts, but can see the value in encouraging good habits of thought and discouraging bad ones.
One's definition of "good" and "bad" might vary rather considerably.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Armoth: I completely agree, there are plenty of good reasons for controlling one's thoughts even if we are removing religion from the equation.
My husband is reading a book right now kind of on thought control. One of the major claims is that by trying to avoid thinking about something, you actually end up spending more time thinking about it. If you tell someone to not think about pink elephants for 2 minutes, they are going to think about pink elephants. And then after that, you tell them to think about whatever they want, they still think about pink elephants.
Well that's hardly following the instructions. KOM figured out that you don't simply tell somebody not to think about something, rather you fill the void with something else.
If I'm instructed, "Don't think about somebody else's spouse sexually, if it comes into your mind, dismiss it and remind yourself why it's wrong." That's completely different than saying, "Pink elephants must not be thought about." One instruction is a way of perceiving the world, the other is simply an object.
Arbitrarily saying that ideas ought not to be entertained is of course stupid as a person unconvinced that an idea is dangerous will have no intention of obeying, and indeed might start wondering why you're trying to stifle the idea.
I believe one's actions are a product of what they put into their mind. Entertain uplifting, intelligent, and useful thoughts and you will be all those things. Entertain base, depressing, immoral thoughts, and again you will be all those things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They are certainly very skilled, as a general rule, at looking only at evidence they agree with.
That's not thought control, though. That's 'who do you believe' control. It's not as though the folks who disbelieve in such things are actually coming to a realization, "Hey, I'm wrong! It's true!" and then having their biddable thought-control kicking in and reverting. They never get to the 'it's true' point in the first place.
quote:Yes, yes, the first refuge of the internet arguer. If you have a correlation between A and B, it does not follow that A causes B; fine. But you do have to pick from these options:
a) A causes B (the correlation is causation) b) B causes A (the correlation is causation) c) Both are caused by a third factor (in which case there is a correlation you missed, and that correlation is causation) d) Your correlation is a statistical artifact.
Setting 'A' to 'thought control' and B to 'religion', which of the options would you like to argue for?
Option C, though you describe it incorrectly. Rather say '(in which case there is a correlation you missed, and that correlation happens to be causation)'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: All things are dependent on introspection, meditation, spending time with yourself and reminding yourself of your values. Because humans are flawed - we forget ourselves in our desires, and to express our most ideal selves, we need to overcome the other conflicting identities within us.
This isn't a cure-all for flaws. The very same principle can be used to convince one of patently false things, and to believe them unshakably. When we "remind ourselves of our values" in this fashion we are simply programming ourselves in a fashion dictated by the supposed authority to ensure that we are mentally compliant with what the authority claims.
It is, in fact, frequently abused.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Sam, I don't follow. I'm not telling you to repeat a mantra so that you blur out your desires and cause yourself to follow something blindly because you brainwashed yourself into it.
I'm talking about clearing your mind so that you can allow yourself to think and choose logically. Say that you're interested in cheating on your spouse - I'm not telling you to brainwash yourself into moving past that so that you can conform to societal norms and not deal with the inconvenience of an affair - I'm talking about introspecting and clearing your mind of the desires that may cloud your judgment in the specific area. Said introspection may lead you to conclude that an affair would be a great idea - the point is though, that your highest self is in control of that decision instead of letting your instinct do the talking.
It's odd, and it too me a while to grasp, that there are multiple identities within me. My desires often conflict. It is my life's work to sort it out so that I control my own identity - whether I am religious or not. I want to be the guy who goes the gym, not the guy who plays video games - even though sometime the urge to do the latter is difficult to overcome.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
While what I'm talking about isn't brainwashing, the connection I make is one I make because "clearing your mind" is different than "reminding yourself of your values."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Well i feel like you'll remind yourself of your values when you clear your mind. Right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's not clearing your mind, though. That's fixating on a value you want to reinforce. What you're doing is a form of psychological reinforcement, a fixed-point meditation, that you are engaging upon with the purposeful intent to tell yourself that something is true and reinforce the notion and alter your behavior and perspective through the exercise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That's not thought control, though. That's 'who do you believe' control. It's not as though the folks who disbelieve in such things are actually coming to a realization, "Hey, I'm wrong! It's true!" and then having their biddable thought-control kicking in and reverting. They never get to the 'it's true' point in the first place.
Actually, if you look at some deconversion stories, you'll find that people often do realise that creationism is false long before they are able to admit it to themselves, much less to others. The fear of Hell will do that. I also invite you to consider the phrase "wrestling with doubt". Genuine doubt annihilates itself. You only 'wrestle' with it if you don't like your conclusion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:That's not thought control, though. That's 'who do you believe' control. It's not as though the folks who disbelieve in such things are actually coming to a realization, "Hey, I'm wrong! It's true!" and then having their biddable thought-control kicking in and reverting. They never get to the 'it's true' point in the first place.
Actually, if you look at some deconversion stories, you'll find that people often do realise that creationism is false long before they are able to admit it to themselves, much less to others. The fear of Hell will do that. I also invite you to consider the phrase "wrestling with doubt". Genuine doubt annihilates itself. You only 'wrestle' with it if you don't like your conclusion.
I agree with KOM on this one. When an idea is ingrained in your head so pervasively it's easy to refuse to see the obvious. Ask many people raised during Mao's chairmanship, the propaganda was everywhere and it was pushed into their minds so forcefully that when surrounded with destitution and starvation, they could conceive on any explanation save it being Mao who was a bad guy. It's a very interesting concept that the book Wild Swans by Jung Chang discusses quite often.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The thing is, while I agree that this technique is exactly what totalitarian dictators take advantage of, it's also exactly what I think decent people everyone in the world use to resist their basic instincts, and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Now, I've been raised to keep an open mind and think about new ideas critically. So when presented with a situation where I'm not sure what to do or think I may be doing the wrong thing, the core moral principal I remind myself is exactly that. Which is the opposite of what a dictator would want you to do, but I think the technique is essentially the same, if you were to replace "keep an open mind" with "what would Mao want me to do?" or whatever.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)