SXSW: Why Sex Is Worse Than Violence & 9 Other Things We Learned About the MPAA
http://www.film.com/movies/mpaa-sex-violence
http://www.film.com/movies/mpaa-sex-violence
MPAA: Why Sex Is Worse Than Violence
- Thread starter rayw
- Start date
Sex is considered worse than violence only because of the tight-assed puritan douchebags that feel sex is morally wrong for any reason other than procreation. I find that violence has a much bigger desensitizing effect on kids than watching a sex scene. This country has it's priorities ass-backward.
Sex can be morally wrong very easily. Ever had a girlfriend cheat on you ? It's wrong and it has nothing to do with procreation.
Also, on-screen violence is fake. On-screen sex is way less fake.
Exactly, how often do they actually spill real blood as oppossed to er real penetration. If you're actually seeing it then I'd imagine it's pretty damn hard to fake sex. Violence is easy to fake and a good portion of the population realises it is fake.
Also just an interesting thought. Violence has always been relatively public. Always. In wars they don't get two people and put them in a room where no one can see to fight, it happens on streets or outside your house, a common occurrence in some places. But sex, it is a private matter. We don't really want to see that in public and that translates to the screen.
Last edited:
Not just mine, I believe it's the general acceptance on "cheating". I just wanted to give an example on how sex can get morally wrong without being linked to procreation.
And I believe there are many more examples.
And I would love to read in what way..
When I watch a movie, sex scenes and violent scenes do not have the same effect on me.
Sex scenes instillate a sexual desire in my head (when they are well done).
Violence scenes either have absolutely no effect, can make me laugh, or get repulsive if they get very graphic (and that's usually a choice of the director to make a point).
Another thing to be considered is that sex is an intimate thing where violence is not at all. So showing one is more okay than showing the other.
Beliefs are not necessarily truths. Nor are your beliefs necessarily mine.
This is also your belief.
The MPAA would be very interesting indeed, if either you & I were on its panel. Or even both of us.
Last edited:
We?
Well sex might be something that interests us, but when it's in public it's another matter.
Going by laws. If you punch a guy in public and you both know each other and it ends right away etc etc you should be good. If you so much as pull your pants down in public you have the potential to get completely screwed over and lose over on a number of potential jobs.
'We' being that almost everyone I know (anywhere not just in my town) would have a similar opinion. Even the ones I know who are obsessed with sex still take it to the bedroom and not public....
Look this argument will go on forever and I'm pretty sure it's an argument where people rarely change sides
Last edited:
Well yeah.
As the article says, ratings are mainly for parents of children, and sex is certainly of an inappropriate level for children, which is why it is more harshly rated
So Red Dawn's light PG-13 rating with military invasions, massacre of civilian populations, concentration camps for the rest, gunfights, teens as killers, teens being killed, alcohol consumption and reckless vehicle driving (prolly missed a few: oh yeah, executing parents in front of their kids is a good one) is more appropriate for children, than a film that garners an R because a married couple have a hot, steamy scene together?
...because that's what the article is addressing.
Last edited:
Sorry, violence is not less realistic than sex in most US films. But because it's considered much less taboo than sex, most people in this country have been desensitized to it, so it seems that way.
Besides, how many people do you know that have sex compared to getting into brutal fights on a regular basis or killing people with machine guns...?
I would guess that most people know more of the former than the latter. Not to mention that sex between two consenting adults doesn't hurt people, violence does. So why should violence be more acceptable in film?
Besides, how many people do you know that have sex compared to getting into brutal fights on a regular basis or killing people with machine guns...?
I would guess that most people know more of the former than the latter. Not to mention that sex between two consenting adults doesn't hurt people, violence does. So why should violence be more acceptable in film?
Yeah ok I know what you're trying to say. However when I watch violence I don't feel much unless it's like Django where's funny or in a war film it might be painful at times. Sex however we feel. Even just a small level of physical contact between people makes the audience react. Violence not so much. I suppose this is how we've been brought up though. Which is perhaps why my opinion is much different to yours Steve
As a parent of two children, I'm MUCH more worried about the level of violence my kids see in film than of any sex scenes. And it would be my choice as far what's inappropriate for them.
I'm not yet a parent or soon to be one, but I believe that I would be equally cautious between the two with my kids upbringing
I might not quite understand your rating system, but isn't PG-13 for Teens and above? Isn't PG and G for children?
I personally have the view, appropriate things for appropriate age groups, but people are individuals. Sex and violence isn't necessarily appropriate for children. It should be a judgement call of their parents. The rating system should be there to help the parents make a more informed decision.
It's a guideline; not an actual restriction (unless it's NC-17, where you must be 17+)
Even R rated films (suggested for 17+, or along with a guardian/parent) are jam-packed full of kids, for one reason or another.
Does it, though?
What does R tell me?
I agree with the sentiment, Sweetie, but there's such a stigma surrounding an "R" rating that it could mean the difference between a movie making a profit or not, and it could simply be due to them saying the F-word once as compared to twice. That's arbitrary IMO. Is there truly a difference between hearing the word once or a dozen times?? Ridiculous.
And the rating system has changed drastically. All the President's Men is "PG" and there are several f-bombs in that movie. Why is it not rated "R"? And if my kid saw that, would he be scarred for life because he heard Jason Robards drop an f-bomb?
And the rating system has changed drastically. All the President's Men is "PG" and there are several f-bombs in that movie. Why is it not rated "R"? And if my kid saw that, would he be scarred for life because he heard Jason Robards drop an f-bomb?