FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » HBO for a sensitive/religious viewer (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: HBO for a sensitive/religious viewer
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Violence is an unnatural thing for a human
Nonsense. Civilization is all about controlling and repressing that very natural urge.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]

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

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink] (And it's been too long so that's all I remember, and not the specific events that gave me that impression.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
(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.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink] (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.

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Armoth
Member
Member # 4752

 - posted      Profile for Armoth   Email Armoth         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Eh, they're mostly robots anyway.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Samp: I dunno, the different physiological effects that seeing somebody killed, and seeing a woman flaunting her boobs have on me is quite stark.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aeolusdallas
Member
Member # 11455

 - posted      Profile for aeolusdallas   Email aeolusdallas         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Totally different style of punching.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
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?"

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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."

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,108021,00.html?iid=digg_share

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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Armoth
Member
Member # 4752

 - posted      Profile for Armoth   Email Armoth         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus, thanks for clarifying. I don't know if you're on to something or not, though.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2