4 ms·

The theatrical dimension doesn't change much. That's how strange the US is in this respect. The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexist

The theatrical dimension doesn't change much. That's how strange the US is in this respect. The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent, contrary to the amount of censorship applied to sex, real or otherwise. Do Americans censor "real" violence more than theatrical violence? Possibly. Do they censor "real" violence less than any form of nudity? Yes. You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. At the very least, the uproar will be an order of magnitude larger for the boobs as compared to the violence. And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special.

drstewart 10y ago
>And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special. Really? Have you been to the Middle East, or is your definition of "the world" a handful of western European countries?
- omginternets 10y ago
  Fair enough. I was referring to the first world, and specifically the Western world. The point remains. The US is a very special case in this respect. I would further argue that even with the middle east involved, such an ascetic rejection of nudity is hardly the norm across the world. But that's still addressing a tangential (and, I think, pedantic) point.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Just because many other cultures have a prudishness about nudity doesn't make our particular prudishness about nudity a universal value, and ours isn't similar at all to the Middle East's. Our censorship arrangement is uniquely our own.
weberc2 10y ago
> The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent So the ratio of social networks that permit ISIS beheading videos to those which don't is very high in your estimation? How about in the newsmedia--are there very many major U.S. news publications that depict the full gore of these beheadings or no?
nonce42 10y ago
Some random thoughts on the US movie situation: For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex. It seems like movies have a monopoly on socially acceptable portrayals of nudity. Nobody raises an eyebrow if you go to a mainstream movie with a nude scene. And actresses can show breasts in movies, but would cause a scandal if a nipple showed happened in real life. Once I started thinking about how much violence is shown in movies, I realized that it really is a crazy level. Just count the murders in a typical action movie and compare to real life. (Interestingly, rapes are portrayed very very rarely in movies.) I'm not suggesting censorship of violent movies, but doesn't it seem like maybe there's a bit too much?
- tdkl 10y ago
  > but very possibly could decide to have sex. Oh the horror. Perhaps if sane sex ed was wide spread[1], that would be a non issue. Like in EU. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requirement-maps_n_5111835.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requi...
  - sp332 10y ago
    Sex in movies is usually not "sane sex ed", and that's GP's argument for not showing it.
    - sir_smurf 10y ago
      I would guess that he/she means that if there was sane sex ed in school, then seeing people having sex on tv wouldn't make kids have unprotected sex any more than seeing violence on tv would make them go around killing people.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > but very possibly could decide to have sex. This is the idiotic prudishness that people are talking about. Teenagers aren't going to have sex because a movie has boobs in it. They are going to have sex because they want to have sex. It's basic biology. Educate them and encourage them to make good/mature choices.
serge2k 10y ago
> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. Braveheart is rated R. We did get to see scenes from an R rated movie in grade 10, but it was the opening to saving private ryan while we were studying WW2. I'd argue that violence like that in context is more acceptable. 15 year olds are also much better prepared. The thing that's really ridiculous is the swearing. The Walking Dead has gratuitous violence, but they can't say fuck because that would hurt advertising revenue. It's ridiculous.
weberc2 10y ago
> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. Braveheart has nudity and violence, and we don't allow 8-10 year olds to see it.

drstewart 10y ago

>And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special. Really? Have you been to the Middle East, or is your definition of "the world" a handful of western European countries?

omginternets 10y ago
Fair enough. I was referring to the first world, and specifically the Western world. The point remains. The US is a very special case in this respect. I would further argue that even with the middle east involved, such an ascetic rejection of nudity is hardly the norm across the world. But that's still addressing a tangential (and, I think, pedantic) point.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 10y ago
Just because many other cultures have a prudishness about nudity doesn't make our particular prudishness about nudity a universal value, and ours isn't similar at all to the Middle East's. Our censorship arrangement is uniquely our own.

weberc2 10y ago

> The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent So the ratio of social networks that permit ISIS beheading videos to those which don't is very high in your estimation? How about in the newsmedia--are there very many major U.S. news publications that depict the full gore of these beheadings or no?

nonce42 10y ago

Some random thoughts on the US movie situation: For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex. It seems like movies have a monopoly on socially acceptable portrayals of nudity. Nobody raises an eyebrow if you go to a mainstream movie with a nude scene. And actresses can show breasts in movies, but would cause a scandal if a nipple showed happened in real life. Once I started thinking about how much violence is shown in movies, I realized that it really is a crazy level. Just count the murders in a typical action movie and compare to real life. (Interestingly, rapes are portrayed very very rarely in movies.) I'm not suggesting censorship of violent movies, but doesn't it seem like maybe there's a bit too much?

tdkl 10y ago
> but very possibly could decide to have sex. Oh the horror. Perhaps if sane sex ed was wide spread[1], that would be a non issue. Like in EU. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requirement-maps_n_5111835.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requi...
- sp332 10y ago
  Sex in movies is usually not "sane sex ed", and that's GP's argument for not showing it.
  - sir_smurf 10y ago
    I would guess that he/she means that if there was sane sex ed in school, then seeing people having sex on tv wouldn't make kids have unprotected sex any more than seeing violence on tv would make them go around killing people.
serge2k 10y ago
> but very possibly could decide to have sex. This is the idiotic prudishness that people are talking about. Teenagers aren't going to have sex because a movie has boobs in it. They are going to have sex because they want to have sex. It's basic biology. Educate them and encourage them to make good/mature choices.

serge2k 10y ago

> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. Braveheart is rated R. We did get to see scenes from an R rated movie in grade 10, but it was the opening to saving private ryan while we were studying WW2. I'd argue that violence like that in context is more acceptable. 15 year olds are also much better prepared. The thing that's really ridiculous is the swearing. The Walking Dead has gratuitous violence, but they can't say fuck because that would hurt advertising revenue. It's ridiculous.

weberc2 10y ago