What consider more harmfull in movies?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2005-07-28 03:14pm

What consider more harmfull in movies, sadistic and grafic violence or clear full frontal nudity?

Also which in you oppinion should matter more when giving a rating for movie?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-07-28 03:17pm

I think your grammatical incompetence is doing more damage to my head right now. >.<

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2005-07-28 03:19pm

And I can't even delete this shit, damm.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2005-07-28 03:24pm

I don't know if either are that harmful. Is there any actual evidence to suggest they are?

One could argue that a movie that shows the graphic results of violence would be more beneficial to a child than something that shows plenty of violence but no consequences (For example, The A-Team spraying bullets around and not even hurting anyone.)

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2005-07-28 03:28pm

Ghetto Edit:

In answer to the actual question in the OP (sorry for missing it) i'd probably say that they should both be on an equal standing for giving a film a certificate.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-07-28 03:33pm

Violence is worse then nudity, hands down. The only reason there's a taboo on nudity is because it's very vaguely related to a practice in which two people gain enjoyment from each other. Often this act is associated with affection... and for some damned reason, it's seen as bad.

Violence, however, is associated with the truly evil side of people. Instead of mutual pleasure to a possible benefit, it's pain imposed by one over another. It too can be mutual, but it isn't a good thing.

Why would there even be a contest between these two?

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-07-28 03:44pm

Zero132132 wrote:Violence is worse then nudity, hands down. The only reason there's a taboo on nudity is because it's very vaguely related to a practice in which two people gain enjoyment from each other. Often this act is associated with affection... and for some damned reason, it's seen as bad.

Violence, however, is associated with the truly evil side of people. Instead of mutual pleasure to a possible benefit, it's pain imposed by one over another. It too can be mutual, but it isn't a good thing.

Why would there even be a contest between these two?

I believe this sentiment is fully expressed and argued for here.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2005-07-28 03:47pm

Zero132132 wrote:Violence is worse then nudity, hands down. The only reason there's a taboo on nudity is because it's very vaguely related to a practice in which two people gain enjoyment from each other. Often this act is associated with affection... and for some damned reason, it's seen as bad.

Violence, however, is associated with the truly evil side of people. Instead of mutual pleasure to a possible benefit, it's pain imposed by one over another. It too can be mutual, but it isn't a good thing.

Why would there even be a contest between these two?

I agree that only reason why nudity is considered bad is that it considered related to sex which is for some reason bad (yeah right), while even sadistic wiolence is not as bad if done to save "the American way of life" (TM)

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-07-28 04:32pm

Id invert the ratings, honestly. violence 18+, sexuality in a range from g to r.

Ive found light colonel grossman makes a pretty good case against violence in media.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-07-28 04:39pm

It's fucking retarded that you can say that affection's bad, while violence is somehow okay.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-07-28 04:39pm

Note: By you, I mean much of the general population, including my mother.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2005-07-28 04:44pm

Thats why I like living in Germany they have no stupid ideas about the human body as you can see full frontal nudity in tv commericals during day time. Hell I want to see a naked chick I just go to the swimming pool.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-07-28 04:49pm

We're all going to see full frontal nudity during our lives ... most of us won't be exposed to graphic violence. So I'd definitely see the violence as more deserving of a restrictive rating.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-07-28 05:00pm

Both are often portrayed very unrealistically in movies. Unrealistic violence is easy to spot and, in my opinion, easier for a developing mind to filter out. Unrealistic portrayals of sex, affection, relationships, etc. is more complicated for a developing mind, and can set poor attitudes towards it at an early age. In my opinion, of course.

Rahvin · Post by **Rahvin** » 2005-07-28 07:40pm

I think sex is only "bad" in entertainment because American society has made human sexuality as a whole a taboo and something to be embarrassed about. This creates issues when people are exposed to sexual content. No matter the context, they have been taught to be ashamed of sex. Young children who have not yet been programmed with society's shame and guilt have no issues at all with being naked or seeing nudity. Non-American cultures who accept nudity and sex as perfectly natural and acceptable have not crumbled into cesspits of immorality. It's the society-programmed shame that causes the damage - not the nudity or sex itself.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-07-28 07:49pm

I still think, though, that full nudity should be reserved for films geared at a certain age level as well as violence simply because usually if I don't want a film to have violence, I'd rather it not have excessive nudity, either, because by God I'm trying to enjoy Beauty and the Beast without reading too far into it

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-07-28 10:25pm

Pick wrote:I still think, though, that full nudity should be reserved for films geared at a certain age level as well as violence simply because usually if I don't want a film to have violence, I'd rather it not have excessive nudity, either, because by God I'm trying to enjoy Beauty and the Beast without reading too far into it

I took a college level lit class this summer.

God, can you read too much into it. >_<

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-28 10:51pm

SPOOFE wrote:Both are often portrayed very unrealistically in movies. Unrealistic violence is easy to spot and, in my opinion, easier for a developing mind to filter out. Unrealistic portrayals of sex, affection, relationships, etc. is more complicated for a developing mind, and can set poor attitudes towards it at an early age. In my opinion, of course.

How exactly did you go from "full frontal nudity" to "sex, affection, relationships, etc"?

You can show sex, affection, relationships, etc. without any nudity. Conversely, you can show nudity without sex, affection, relationships, etc.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-28 10:53pm

As for the actual thread topic, nudity in and of itself is completely harmless. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that it can harm anyone in any way. Michelangelo's "David" statue is a full-frontal nude piece of art, and nobody worries that their kids will be traumatized if they see it in an art gallery.

Violence, on the other hand, can be argued to desensitize children to more violence. Whether that translates into increased violent tendencies is a matter for discussion, but there is certainly far more evidence to give cause for concern with violence than nudity.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-07-29 02:56am

Lord Revan wrote:sadistic and grafic violence

naturally

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-07-29 03:21am

I don't think either is harmful, because violent as hell is the way the world is and nudity is the way humans are meant to be.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-07-29 03:45am

I think that violence is the more damaging.

Nudity is the more awkward when a kid asks the parent - "whats that?"

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2005-07-29 04:51am

Darth Wong wrote: Michelangelo's "David" statue is a full-frontal nude piece of art, and nobody worries that their kids will be traumatized if they see it in an art gallery.

Unless you're John Ashcroft!

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-07-29 07:34am

How exactly did you go from "full frontal nudity" to "sex, affection, relationships, etc"?

"because it's very vaguely related to a practice in which two people gain enjoyment from each other. Often this act is associated with affection... and for some damned reason, it's seen as bad."

"I agree that only reason why nudity is considered bad is that it considered related to sex which is for some reason bad"

"It's fucking retarded that you can say that affection's bad, while violence is somehow okay."

Did you even read the thread?

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-07-29 09:29am

If I had a child that saw full frontal nudity in a cinema I would be shocked and suprised but unless I made a big fuss about it I doubt the child would actually be that bothered. By around 5 it would probably laugh because by that age they no its "naughty" to go around with no clothes on but its not going to cause them nightmates.

If I had a child that saw (and I quote from OP) "sadistic and graphic violence" then I imagine that, to take the age 5 as an example again, there would be serious shock to the child. It could cause nightmares and general unhappiness.

No question in my opinion. Now if the OP had been about hard core sex and hard core violence then perhaps the issue might have been slightly different. But it was not.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What consider more harmfull in movies?

What consider more harmfull in movies?

Re: What consider more harmfull in movies?