Sex vs Violence (cliche, I know)

[eek]

This thought struck me when I was browsing Oblivion General... yes, you read correctly, Oblivion General. The OP of a certain thread was asking why this game got a "T" rating with so much violence. So, it got me thinking...

Why is it that games (and, I suppose, other media) with sexual content get a higher rating than those with violence?

I find it odd that this is the case. A bit of swordplay and blood (like we see in Oblivion, for example) gets a "T" rating. Add a bit of nudity or sex, you get the "M" sticker. Now, most of us will know what the human anatomy looks like by then, and (over here at least) intercourse is legal by 16, so why is it that we're not allowed to see it until we reach 18? Yet, we can see people shooting each other, dismembered corpses and all that beforehand.

Why is the creation of life censored more than it's destruction?

What's your stance? What do you think?

[darkhelmet]

Heh, you can show biographies of serial killers on TV, but one half-topless incident in the Super Bowl is the real thing that could scar your kids for life!



Violence, I think.

[Twitchmonkey]

I'd personally rather get sexed than beaten, though they can sometimes go together. That's my stance.

[Britney]

I think both are detrimental in most contexts, but overall I would have to say sexual. Before children have hormones of their own (), they won't understand sex regardless of context...

Violence, if placed in the right context (like a fairy tale for instance) is understood by children at any age because the instinct for survival (i.e. not become another creature's food) is there. The sexual instinct however doesn't awaken until a particular age... so that's why I think the sexual content is worse for children under that age.

[eek]

Ah... good, good, this is what I like to see. I agree with you here (for once ). At what age, or range of ages, do you think this transition takes place (this goes for all of you)?

[darkhelmet]

But we're talking a small amount of nudity, as opposed to the bloody carnage present in Oblivion. If I was a little kid, I'd think fighting dismembered, headless mutated, rotted zombies and seeing people get beaten to death would be a little more intense than some cartoonish pr0n.

[mastab]

Sex and violence are both parts of real life. Childeren should not be kept in a bubble their early years and then just pushed out into, well, sex and violence. If you educate them well, they won't rape, kill, or do anything bad because of what they learned.

[ShadowLynx]

It depends...

I have watched sexual scenes and very violent (the Jew massacres in Sorbibor) since I was seven but I have remained the same... It depends on the child but I think violence is worse since the child'll know what copulation it is after a while...

And "M" doesn't matter here... I've seen little kids go to watch Hostel...

[Hunessai]

Sex is good. It makes more people. I know that I certainly be here without it.

Violence is bad. It makes less people. If I was killed, I'd know that I certainly wouldn't be around anymore.

So I'll pick violence. Thank you, sex, for letting me exist.

[Slipper Eater]

Depends really - you can't exactly have sex in a disney films for babies, but you can have comical violence. For the most part, as people get older violence tends to be more detrimental but sex isn't, how many 14 year olds have watched porn? How many 13 year olds still think the stork brought them to mummy and Daddy?

Whereas teenagers probably accept violence and start thinking guns are cool. Like sheep. Baaaah!

[Twitchmonkey]

slippereater said:

Whereas teenagers probably accept violence and start thinking guns are cool. Like sheep. Baaaah!

Umrahel?

[WitchBoy]

Can't we have both?

[Osama Bin Laden]

Neither, if explained right. Nudity, shouldnt matter at all, its natural. I consider pornography and nudity seperate things. Nudity does not include intercourse, porn does. Violence on the other hand, shouldnt be introduced to children untill their atleast 4, and at that age only comical violence, at 13 is when I would allow my children to watch shows like Baghdad ER, all the while explaining that those injuries are the product of violence in real life, and play graphic video games.

Neither are more truamatising than the other, if you mean pornography when you say sexual, and graphic realistic violence when you say violence.

[pilaf]

With proper parental presence in the life of a child, the child has both explained to him or her in such a fashion that he or she realizes that what he or she sees on a television screen, in a game or movie, is seperate from reality, and that he or she shouldn't always practice what he or she sees.

In case anyone missed that, I said proper parental presence. I think that any complaint any parent in this world has about anything that supposedly negatively influenced their kid never talked to that kid about it in the first place, then they have no right to pin the blame on anyone but themselves.

[TheStranger]

Depends on the child, and the manner in which the topic is addressed.

[pilaf]

thestranger said:

Depends on the child, and the manner in which the topic is addressed.

I would suggest addressing the important topics often and in a sane and friendly manner.

I'm satisfied there are thousands of parents in my country alone who have never once had a talk with their kids about sex, violence, or drugs.

[Kained But Able]

thedevil696 said:

Neither, if explained right. Nudity, shouldnt matter at all, its natural. I consider pornography and nudity seperate things. Nudity does not include intercourse, porn does.

Agreed. There's a distinct difference between nudity and porn. I wouldn't be too bothered about little children seeing nudity as long as it didn't encourage them to sleep around like porn does. Mindless violence, on the other hand, is bad regardless.

[Gold_skywalker]

darkhelmet said:

Heh, you can show biographies of serial killers on TV, but one half-topless incident in the Super Bowl is the real thing that could scar your kids for life!



Violence, I think.

O rly? I must have been imagining, seeing Roman pornography from a documentary about Pompei.

And yes, it was porn, it was a Brothel, and the carvings were of that nature.

[Muad'dib]

*Insert rant on how sex and/or violence is damaging for children*







*remove rant because its stupid*



Reality is, you can't have one arbitrary answer to this. Truth is, each kid is different, based on the way the topic is addressed by the parents.

If parents are to talk to their kids about these things at an age that is deemed appropriate, and if a lot of external influences are all ok, then there wouldn't be an issue.

If you think these can't be damaging to children, you are equally as wrong as those who think it is, and want to legislate against it.

Seems like a big wok of self interest to me

[Gold_skywalker]

I think you're Preaching to the choir.

[Muad'dib]

Seems the choir members are all singing different songs...

Note the poll, 6 votes say "Neither."

Well, I suppose in a certain context, that applies, but "Neither" as intended to cover every case? I'd have to disagree with that.

Its all about how maturely the subject is addressed. Basically, I agree with pilaf.

[Osama Bin Laden]

Theres no "Both" option.

[Muad'dib]

Or "Other."

It entirely depends on context.

It doesn't matter what is on the poll, and what isn't. Its the thread that matters, not how many people vote in a poll.

[Osama Bin Laden]

Exactly.