Why is watching violence more acceptable than nudity/sex?

[JFrankA]

Further proof of Ivor's point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11417672

Especially this list:

10 most challenged of 2009

•ttyl, ttfn, l8r, g8r (series) by Lauren Myracle: Drugs, nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson: Homosexuality

The Perks of Being A Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky: Anti-family, drugs, homosexuality, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, suicide, unsuited to age group

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee: Offensive language, racism, unsuited to age group

Twilight (series)by Stephenie Meyer: Religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger: Offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult: Drugs, homosexuality, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexism, sexually explicit, suicide, unsuited to age group, violence

The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big, Round Things by Carolyn Mackler: Offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

The Color Purple by Alice Walker: Offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier: Nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Source: ALA

Only once was "violent" was cited as a reason. Even if you count "suicide" as violent, sexual reasons far outweigh the violent ones.

 

[JFrankA]

James Bond, although he's also violent as well as being a notorious sex addict. Perhaps he's excused the sluttiness because he kills so many people?

That's one! And he's excused for his sluttiness because he's a man. How about them over sexual women? Any heroes (heroines) from that group?

 

[TragicMonkey]

How can nudity in a book offend? Not counting illustrations, of course. But a text description?

 

[Anerystos]

How can nudity in a book offend? Not counting illustrations, of course. But a text description?

It did offend a colleague of mine: BTW she is a teacher of English.

"The Cement Garden".

 

[jimtron]

Interesting article from today's Salon: "Court reaffirms: Sex much worse than violence."

Sex is scarier, and more dangerous, than violence.
That was the cultural belief the Supreme Court reinforced on Monday when it rejected an attempt to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.

This latest ruling reveals a remarkable double standard -- one that dissenting justice Stephen Breyer calls out in his written remarks. He asks:

[W]hat sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman -- bound, gagged, tortured, and killed -- is also topless?
​

 

[WildCat]

You guys do realize the violence is fake, don't you? Real violence is not shown, you won't see NBC showing Daniel Pearl getting his head sawn off.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You guys do realize the violence is fake, don't you? Real violence is not shown, you won't see NBC showing Daniel Pearl getting his head sawn off.

And the effects of seeing fake violence are different from seeing real violence?

 

[sgtbaker]

And the effects of seeing fake violence are different from seeing real violence?

Grant it, I am not sure if you are asking sarcastically or if you honestly don't think there is a difference between the effects of fake violence and real violence. There is the difference of knowing that after a person appears to be brutalized in a scene of a movie, you know, in the back of your head that the actor is fine. After that scene was shot, the director yelled, "Cut!" and the "victim" had lunch. Watching, for instance, a video where someone gets gang jumped, where one of the party records it on his/her cell phone and uploads the video; there is no "cut," there is no, thank goodness it was fake; a real human being just got really brutalized and some of the effects of the beating can be lasting to permanent.

OTOH, if you were just asking to point out the obvious, my apologies.

 

[WildCat]

And the effects of seeing fake violence are different from seeing real violence?

I would certainly hope so! If you are not affected in some way by real violence there's something wrong in your head.

IMHO

 

[Kaylee]

This is a Society of Death. Sex, being the cause of breeding and life, gets in the way of our Society's personal interests.

^ That. For most people, both men and women, probably the most important and lasting thing they will accomplish is to do their part to help raise the next generation up to adulthood. The next generation, and everything connected to it, is going to be a major concern of "Society."

I think we are all capable of an emotional disconnect regarding violence which we are not regarding sex.

<snip>

We can distance ourselves from violence when we know it's fake. (Either innately or through habituation I don't know. I do know I recall seeing John Wayne gun down Red Indians when I was six and I didn't get upset by it then either). It surely didn't get me hot and bothered at fourteen. Jane Fonda in Barbarella did.

We cannot distance ourselves from "pretend" sex in the same way we can from "pretend" violence. Our physiological response to pretend sex is more or less the same as our response to real sex. Anyone who has ever been involved in real violence will agree that is absolutely not so in the case of real violence as opposed to pretend violence.
<snip>

and ^ that.


Also, nudity is often associated with sex and sex can also be associated with bonding in a way that violence isn't. Especially in communities where its not common to have casual sex but to reserve it for long-term relationships.

I have a hypothesis that on a certain level organized religions, governments and families(esp. extended families as use to be more common generations ago in Western societies and still exists in other societies like rural Pakistan) have been competitive with each other although it hasn't been openly acknowledged.

That may be one reason (one reason, not all of the reasons) why sexual relations are the target of so much regulation by both governments and religion and also why sex and women have been the target of shaming by some religions. Much of recorded history is about whether governments would be subject to the Church (or another organized faith) or organized religions would be subject to government law. I suspect that much of unrecorded history is about organized religions (or priest castes) and governments making families, including extended families, subject to their laws.

ETA: I just realized that this is a zombie thread! Oh well.