The Worst Offense
The comments on Your Racist Friend's recent post were starting to take a turn this way, so rather than getting that discussion off track, I'm giving the offshoot discussion a home here.
The MPAA looks at a number of things when deciding what rating to give a movie: language, violence, sexual activity, nudity, and drug use are five of the main things they look for.
In your opinion, which of these things is the most harmful to children? Which is the most benign?
And on a personal level, which offends your moral sensibilities the most? Which offends them the least?
The MPAA looks at a number of things when deciding what rating to give a movie: language, violence, sexual activity, nudity, and drug use are five of the main things they look for.
In your opinion, which of these things is the most harmful to children? Which is the most benign?
And on a personal level, which offends your moral sensibilities the most? Which offends them the least?
posted by Dr. Worm at 8:36 AM
16 Comments:
Such a good question, DW. As far as children go? I think the things they really don't need to see up til a certain age are (in order): Sexual Content, Drug Use, Language, Violence, Nudity.
Personally, I feel that these have to be broken down according to context. I don't find depictions of drug use all that offensive in film, unless it's really glorified or made out to be not that bad. And it usually isn't......pile of cocaine on desk = bad guy. Nudity, don't really have a problem with, but that doesn't exactly mean I want to see certain things (*cough, Borat and Azamat hotel fight, cough*) either. I can think of only one film where the sexual content really bothered me: Chuck and Buck. Crapmeister Mike White's film about two former childhood friends meeting as adults at the funeral of Chuck's mother, and Chuck ends up all but stalking Buck. The big twist is that when they were preteens, they "did things with each other", and that's super-normal, and every boy does it. Riiiiiiiggghhhttt...although, I suppose that's more "insulting the intelligence of your audience", than sexual content. Language usually doesn't bother me, but there's no need to arbitrarily pepper a movie with swears for no good reason. Violence, I kind of enjoy a lot, when it's the action-y, fight scene, Desert Eagle in each hand kind of violence. That said, it's depicted extremely unrealistically by Hollywood. That is, in terms of the damage fists/bullets/whatever does to the human body. That, and popular entertainment is much, much less violent than it was in past centuries.
Here's my list of what is most-to least offense to me personally:
1. Violence
2. Sexual content
3. Drug use
4. Nudity
5. Language
But obviously, as YRF points out, the context matters here. A movie showing smiling crack addicts saying, "Crack saved my life" is probably worse than a movie where someone punches someone else in the face. I guess the way I ranked these five is how offensive they each are to me in their worst possible manifestation. Thus:
Graphic, ritual murders is worse than
Graphic depictions of rape is worse than
Graphic, positive portrayals of drug use is worse than
Graphically exposed intimate parts of a person's body is worse than
Constant graphic foul language.
all three of you have valid points (well, two; Hession didn't give points), but i think you're looking at what would be most offensive to YOU, when the actual question was what would be most harmful to CHILDREN. with that in mind, my list goes like this:
1. Violence AND sexual content
3. Language
4. Drug use
5. Nudity
but like YRF and DW said, it all depends on context. violence is different than all the other things because we as humans can become desensitized to it. each time we view it, it takes more for us to be shocked by it the next time. a child's mind is much more malleable than an adults, so a very violent movie viewed several times would over time turn a child into a very violent person.
sexual content is just as big an offender, but for a different reason. sex is something that God ordained right after he was done making the earth, and basically as soon as there were humans to HAVE sex. therefore, it is a very holy, sanctified, and private matter. i really don't think explicit sexual content should be viewed by children OR adults, because it takes the private and adds a third party, the viewer. now, there are no hard and fast rules about what can be considered "explicit" and what can not. but i think a good rule is anything you wouldn't do in public, don't show.
language is bad, and children imitate what they see, but that can be easily overcome with proper instruction. drug use isn't huge because the pretty much NO movie presents using illegal drugs as a good thing. nudity by itself isn't huge because when nudity shows up (outside of sexual content), it's usually beautiful and soul-enriching. a good example of this is Titanic. two caveats to this, however. i say "usually" because there are cases where nudity is the exact opposite of soul-enriching (the Borat-Azamat fight scene). also, there is usually not nudity without there also being sexual content.
No, DW specified both the questions of what we think would be harmful to children, and what we find personally offensive.
Good points, PM. I can think of one movie that I think romanticizes heroin: Sid and Nancy. When they ride off to heaven in that taxicab at the end of the movie, after Sid ODs? Ick, ick, ick.
I slightly disagree with you on violence as viewed by children. The kids of the 50's grew up on the Davy Crockett show, which was WAY more violent than anything on kids television these days. And yet, they turned out ok. Having said that, I don't think children should be exposed to a lot of violence, as it at least makes them more aggressive in the short term.
I might be confused...hession, did you rank nudity as most offensive and violence as least? Meaning that nudity is more offensive to you as a viewer than the sexual act? If not, just want to clarify. If so, I'm very interested in hearing your rationale.
Yes, that does clarify. Thanks.
It's funny how we all probably think of different things for each one, likely due to what we've been exposed to.
Speaking generally, for me, I can't put them in order in regards to what offends me the most. As mentioned, for me it depends entirely on context.
For children, I think the list goes in this order, most to least offensive:
1. Violence
2. Sexual Content
3. Drug Use
4. Language
5. Nudity
These things are, of course, separate from any kind of context. My reason for making violence first is because in general, compared to the others, it causes more harm to other people, and is most dismissed by our culture as any kind of "big deal." I think when kids view excessive violence their sense of empathy is damaged, and it seems like the cooler, more effective way to deal with problems.
In contrast, IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with the naked body. Shown in sexual context, this climbs a little higher on the list. But personally I think people can make their kids too uptight about nudity in general, when in reality, it's just a body. We all have one. (At least, I think...)
Wow, so clearly we all have different ideas as to what leads to what. I'd be more inclined to think that viewing violence leads to committing acts of violence than to think that viewing nudity leads to pornography addiction or bestiality, but in the absence of any hard data, all we have are suppositions.
I will say this, however: I do think it's possible, in trying to protect children, to give them unhealthy views on sex and nudity. In this list of five, most of us would agree that language, drug use, and violence are bad in their own right, but that nudity and sexual content are natural (in the right context) but private. And I think it's possible to convey the wrong message to children, so that they think that the nude human form or the sexual act are evil in and of themselves.
i agree, DW. personally, i have to disagree with Hession that nudity "hooks" people to pornography. nudity does np such thing. there are ALL kinds of nudity, and sexual nudity is just one form. i'm not talking strictly about movies, now. when a mother breast-feeds her child, for instance, no matter how discreet she is, nudity is occurring. also, nudity can be a social statement, or a way to relieve heat, or a metaphor for freedom or vulnerability. to think that nudity automatically leads to pornography is really kind of vulgar, and devalues all the positive forms nudity can take. children can quite commonly, as DW said, grow to view a naked body as evil, when in actuality, it is anything but. but like anything else, the thing itself is not evil, but the way that humans use can very well be.
Yeah, I don't think that pornography in general leads down this slippery slope to pedophilia and bestiality. While DSM no longer lists the latter as a "significant clinical problem" (not so sure that I agree with that)it's, well, just plain icky to begin with, and the fact that it's also animal abuse. Animals are dumb, and can't consent. And besides....eww. I don't think I can ewww this enough, so moving on. And pedophilia is still classified as a mental disorder by the DSm (I think....), plus there's the fact that it's the desire for sex with a pre-sexual human being. Yeah, not so much. Again, with the consent issue (this also extends to the brain damaged and handicapped for the most part, now that I think about it), and the fact that children are children......sex needs to not ba a part of anybody's childhood. Just my POV on that.
But Hession brings up a really good point about the vast majority of nudity in Hollywood films being sexual in nature. And if it isn't? Then it is. Take Swordfish for example. There's a brief scene of Halle Berry sunbathing topless. Is sunbathing inherently sexual? No. But.....it's Halle Berry topless. The only point of the scene is to provide titilation. It's sad that tasteful nudity has all but disappeared, since it's changed what
nudity means on the silver screen.
it's true, YRF. i, personally, like looking at a naked (female) body, and it commonly has nothing to do with sex. i appreciate the art of the female form, and i think that and nature are the most explicit ways that God shows the beauty of his handiwork. my viewpoint, however, is becoming more and more rare, as some people are associating "boobies" with "doing the deed" automatically. i don't think it necessarily leads to pornography, though, as that's several steps down that path. but i WILL agree, Hession, that pornography tears apart homes and demeans women. unfortunately, it's something we can never get rid of, since the desire that it grows out of is a part of who we all are.
going back to what you said about tasteful nudity, YRF, i think The Godfather has a pretty good example. After Michael's wedding to Appolonia, they are in the bedroom. Michael closes the door, and Appolonia is standing there in just a satin nightgown, which she takes down to reveal her breasts. Michael kisses her on the cheek, they embrace, and that ends the scene. There isn't any sexual content in that scene to speak of; just a new husband and wife expressing their love for one another, and the sex is assumed and implied, left to the viewer's imagination where it belongs. there is nudity, but it is not harmful, and sexual in a beautiful way instead of a base one. however, The Godfather was made in 1972, and the phenomenon has gotten much more rare nowadays.
In no particular order:
Nudity: We all see some nudity during the day when we have a shower or change clothes. I see no harm in nudity, as long as this is not exploited, i.e., I wouldn't want my kids to watch a film about a naked guy/girl where everything revolved around that.
Porn: Porn, or more sexually explicit material than nudity, is bad for two reasons. First, it tends to demean women into objects; and second, it gives people the wrong impression on what sex should be like. I therefore think it should not be made available to kids, although I know (from first source) that kids will do anything to watch it.
I would like to emphasize, though, that porn does not necessarily involve nudity. Lots of ads nowadays depict porn when, say, trying to sell a car.
Language: Another issue where I don't see much harm. I don't think the language itself is the problem (sh*t and f*ck are probably amongst the most common words in my own vocabulary), but rather the intent - as in when these words are said in a nasty manner or whether they are said with a smile (what I'm trying to say is that I would classify the nasty stuff as violence, as opposed to being a category on its own). Let's face it: kids don't need TV/movies to hear such phrases.
The things that are socially acceptable tend to vary with time; I think the war on foul language has already been lost.
Drugs: I cannot make an opinion there as I have had zero exposure to drugs other than during a weekend in Amsterdam, where I was next to several users who explained the "workflow" involved. I only bother mentioning it because I highly recommend Amsterdam!
Religion: I know I will gain the wrath of you with these words, but I think religious material should be excluded from kids' program diet. Young people tend to take what they see and what they are told for granted, no questions asked; we should therefore avoid brainwashing them until they are old enough to make their own minds up.
Violence: To say "no violence" would consist of pure naivety, because violence is all around us. Just look at the way politicians talk. That said, this is the category I would put the most emphasis on as far as preventing child exposure is concerned (if only because enforcing a ban on religious content would be very hard given difficulties in handling different interpretations), because the potential for physical harm coming to others is the biggest by far.
there is no wrath to speak of, Moshe, but two things that you said about religion trouble me. i don't think your giving children enough credit. i've heard some pretty stunning ideas come out of kids' mouths, and some of them are really smart. try as some people might, kids are more resistant to "brainwashing" than some think. also, there was an inmplied "religious material = brainwashing" thing in what you said, when that is usually not the case. Christian kids' videos make the assumption that God exists and then goes from there, but that's really it. check out Veggie Tales to see what i mean.
Two comments for you, PM:
1. If kids are so smart and are perfectly able to distinguish between stuff, maybe they should be allowed to watch nudity, porn, drug use material, bad mouting, and of course - violence. I'm stretching things here, but it should make my point clear.
2. You're automatically assuming I'm talking about Christian stuff. However, when I grew up most of the religious programs on air were either Jewish or Muslim stuff. I wonder how you would feel if, say, a rich Muslim company started pumping Muslim material down the airways.
Anyway, I've strayed off the path way too far. We can just agree to disagree.
well, i was citing Christian sources because that's been my experience, as i've had no exposure to Jewish or Muslim children's programs. but if there are Christian kids' shows, it logically follows that there are Jewish and Muslim ones. i wasn't assuming you meant Christian things; it's just i only have experience with them, so that was all i could refer to. and you have a point that if kids are so smart, etc. my remark was just concerning religious matters; showing kids religious materials and showing them sex and violence are two different things, really. i'm only saying they are more able to separate the wheat from the chaff than some people think. with sex and nudity, there really IS no wheat and chaff; it's just chaff. but yes, i'm perfectly willing to differ on this point. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home