What consider more harmfull in movies?

[Vendetta]

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.

Nudity is clearly not the optimal condition for humans in most places. Wandering around naked your whole life rather limits the range of climates you can happily survive in.

[NapoleonGH]

which wendetta happen to be the exact climates that we first developed in most likely.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with seeing a naked person. Nor is there anything wrong or harmful with bieng a naked person. Clothes are to be worn for practical reasons not due to taboos. Wear a shirt if its cold, not because others get mad.

There cannot be harm being caused by this.

And about watching violence in movies, all i can say is "who cares". Things blow up, people have insides, whats the big deal?

[Surlethe]

The point is that there is nothing wrong with seeing a naked person. Nor is there anything wrong or harmful with bieng a naked person. Clothes are to be worn for practical reasons not due to taboos. Wear a shirt if its cold, not because others get mad.

There cannot be harm being caused by this.

Are you saying nudism doesn't cause harm? Because if you attempt nudism in, say, Saudi Arabia, I'm certain a bit of harm might arise.

But if you're referring to movies, I'll agree with you.

[McC]

Just to point out an exception to the rule, Logan's Run was rated PG and depicted Jenny Agutter (mm...Jenny Agutter...) fully nude at one point. It was brief, but it was also very obvious. *shrug* It wasn't at all sexualized, though, and typically that's what I think higher ratings come from: not the nudity itself, but the depiction of eroticism/sexuality.

Personally, I think it's retarded to hide sexuality from children. Violence...well, so long as the parent is there to remind the child that it's "just a movie" and such. *shrug*

[Elheru Aran]

Just to point out an exception to the rule, Logan's Run was rated PG and depicted Jenny Agutter (mm...Jenny Agutter...) fully nude at one point. It was brief, but it was also very obvious. *shrug* It wasn't at all sexualized, though, and typically that's what I think higher ratings come from: not the nudity itself, but the depiction of eroticism/sexuality.

Personally, I think it's retarded to hide sexuality from children. Violence...well, so long as the parent is there to remind the child that it's "just a movie" and such. *shrug*

Remember that Logan's Run came before the PG-13 rating (IIRC), like Excalibur-- and in that one, not only do you have nudity, but you've got a nekkid lady being fucked by a guy in full armour who ain't even her husband... and somehow or other, it was PG. IIRC.

In any case, I agree-- I've been more bothered by violence, especially the sadistic sort, than nudity.

[Surlethe]

... but you've got a nekkid lady being fucked by a guy in full armour who ain't even her husband...

How does that work?

[McC]

Remember that Logan's Run came before the PG-13 rating (IIRC), like Excalibur-- and in that one, not only do you have nudity, but you've got a nekkid lady being fucked by a guy in full armour who ain't even her husband... and somehow or other, it was PG. IIRC.

Excalibur was PG? Damn. I thought it was R given how...creepy and disturbing some of it is. Never actually checked before, though.

Aha:

USA:PG (cut version) / USA:R (uncut version)

[Elheru Aran]

Must of watched the uncut version, then... IIRC it was marked on the box as PG, though. Strange. I guess people were more flexible back then, though... which raises the question of why they're so straitlaced these days?

[McC]

which raises the question of why they're so straitlaced these days?

I blame the 24-hour news channels.