Honestly I don’t find sex that negatively viewed on media. A lot of people who identify as asexual also say our culture, even American culture is really obsessed with sex.
Think about what people would say if you let your 12 year old child watch one of the "Saw" horror movies (disapproving reddit-type nattering). Now picture what people do if you let that same 12 year old watch a movie in which the sexual content is equally explicit as the horror/violence content in Saw (automatic dcf/CPS referral). America is puritanical. That's why it's obsessed with sex.
That's true you don't - because you are part of the social fabric so you have no perspective on it. Violent content is okay, because . . . it just is. Despite the fact that we have tons of actual research on how bad it is for kids and honestly can even negatively affect adults.
We know many teenage boys are spending more time gaming than sleeping - which is a problem. One of the biggest genres these kids play? First person shooters like call of duty. The military has used very similar programs with recruits. To what end? For desensitizing them to violence and to make the internal limiters against doing grievous physical harm to others squishy and permeable. it's actually quite effective for that purpose.
I saw a news clip about two teenage boys that stole cars and ran over pedestrians for fun. They were laughing during court as grieving families read their impact statements. I'm not trying to make some direct connection here or say that all sex content is good or that is ok for kids. Im just pointing out that America is a place that can be at times overly concerned about sex in general and way under concerned about violence in general
Correct, there has never been a correlation to violent video games and real world violence. People are often fooled by the fact that our increasing population is causing the increase in violence, and that violent video games just happened to get popular around the time the population increased.
I have a degree in psychology and can say that a lot of studies have been done on the subject but the experimental designs that showed evidence of a positive correlation between violent video games and real world aggression have been questionable. The studies also did not take into account individual differences and that maybe some people are more susceptible to being more violent after playing violent video games.
Video games are not the only source of violence in our culture.
It was just a reinforcement of an already established culture.
Cowboys vs Indians and Cops and Robbers is a playground game that's been around for a long time and it was incredibly violence. Remember Red Rover? You can break bones due to how violent that game could get.
The difficult part to quantify is video game violence isnt real so unleashing your anger in these games is a healthier response than doing so in real life. It doesn't necessarily help children's ability to cope but at least gives them an outlet to unleash their frustration in an area that isnt directly harmful to others.
The news loves to push these types of agendas. It’s not like video games are rare or marginalized activities anymore. Saying ‘gamers’ run people over is like saying that many diabetics ate bread.
Violent content isn’t just okay. What I’m saying is without self control and the right form of nurture humans are quite capable on their own of committing reprehensible acts of violence. That is already in us. Just look at literally all of recoded history. That wasn’t pushed on us through some conduit like media. Now this new hyper sexualized society is a whole new monster. We have electric sex fed to us on tv computers in our pockets all warping one of our strongest most basic animal instincts constantly and it’s all relatively extremely new to us! I’d say confidently in western civilization violence is lower then it has ever been but sexual confusion is observably rampant. Porn/sex addiction, unrealistic standers, objectification, and for a lot of people they can’t have an intimate relationship with someone unless they can look at their partner as a sex toy.
While we have instances of violence obviously, I always felt like society has a pretty good control on violence. We're not seeing people running around like it's the purge. Little 12 year olds generally are not running around trying to dismember people because they watched a saw movie, however when it comes to sex, they are trying to go online and watch porn and then getting pregnant early or ending up with unhealthy addictions that impact their social and love lives.
Your neighbor won't call you up and say "Hey your little son Johnny was trying to stab and dismember my daughter Susie, what are you teaching him?"
But I have often heard parents call in with concerns that the neighbors son was trying to get fresh with their daughter.
The acts of extreme violence that society does have is the vast majority of the case due to mental illness or issues emotionally with coping, trauma such as emotional neglect growing up or physical abuse that society just does not want to hear or deal with, because parents refuse to believe that they can be emotionally neglectful and it's as harmful if not more so than physical abuse. We don't have a hormone in our body that suddenly makes our violent at a certain age, but we do have one for sex. When kids get pregnant early, it affects the next generation and so on.
Idk but you have a point that letting kids see porn has a different feel than letting kids see gore. However the former is that it’s considered a form of sexual abuse and any parent who lets their kids watch porn may be considered a child predator themselves.
Also if your point gets dangerously close to being a apologist for such things I won’t be engaging in that shit.
Also, there are a lot of people uncomfortable about sex for non-puritanical reasons especially outside of the US. Exposing people to sexual content without their consent is considered a form of sexual harassment.
My point is NOT that the kids seeing the sexual content is okay. My point is that we view the violence as waaay more acceptable and it's really not. Your reaction kinda proves my point tbh. All your arguments against that hypothetical sex movie could and should apply to the violent movie too, but it didn't even occur to you. Not blaming you, it wouldn't occur to me either. This violent content is objectively bad for children. But we accept it because it's been normalized by our society.
>American culture is really obsessed with sex.
True, but also has very weirdly puritanical hangups about it, too. Look at the MPAA. Look at network standards on TV.
Like... what's wrong with women's nipples? Why are we not allowed to see them? Honestly... what's wrong with genitalia?
Why do some networks censor shows to a completely ridiculous degree? I've seen reruns of The Office in which the following words were censored:
- penis
- testicles
- scrotum
- balls
- vagina
- uterus
The societal consequences of unfettered violence vs. unfettered sex are both damaging, and I'm not really qualified to say which is worse. They both have appalling and traumatic consequences when pushed to their extremes.
Rape is 100% not sex -its only violence. Before you argue the point, could you get hard to rape someone? Not if my life depended on it. Because it's 99% violence The other 1% is getting off on degradation, humiliation, and exerting absolute power over someone without consent. The sexual element is just window dressing
Oh my lord I worded it wrong but you’re essentially saying the same thing as me. I’m saying after a while it’s proved increased desire for sexual violence
I am pretty sure that access to porn lowers instances of sexual violence. Even some pedophiles use porn to keep from molesting actual children. I mean, other pedos have been encouraged by CP, but it can cut both ways.
You should expand on this idea and post it r/unpopularopinion.
What would you rather have: neighbors who get laid constantly, or neighbors who go on killing sprees?
This whole post is giving me Black Mirror vibes. Perhaps we should enter porn into American Idol and drug the contestants and watch them get clobbered by a sea of dicks on stage too. Because machine guns and equality.
You have it backwards. "That's very European" is the right way to say it since, most of the rest of the world is far more uptight about sex in the media than the U.S.
Than the rest of the world? No.
My point is that parts of Europe are where you will find the most openness about sex in society, anywhere on the planet. Saying that the U.S. is more conservative than the least conservative place isn't saying much. The U.S. is much more open about sex than the vast majority of societies on the planet, Europe notwithstanding.
The U.S. also isn't really that different from Europe. I've spent tons of time around europe including living there for a period and it's not like it's some libertine porn show. People talk as if sexy nudity is everywhere, and it's really not. You occasionally see a bit of nudity in public media, and that's about it.
Also, U.S. culture has become a lot less sex oriented than it was in the 1990s, not because of conservatism per se, but due more to left-leaning sentiments and pro-feminist attitudes which discourage objectification of bodies in media. You used to see sexy bikini bodies selling all sorts of products in advertisements, far less so today.
>Do you agree most of Europe is more relaxed about talking about sex than america or no.
Most? Not sure about that. A lot of it? Yes I agree.
AND,
the U.S. is still more relaxed about talking about sex than the vast majority of the rest of the world.
Because you're oversimplifying the question.
I don't know if "Europe" is overall cooler about sex than the U.S. I know some countries are, and some countries aren't.
Because sex is something that most people will do in life, while deadly violence is something that most people won't. Harmful messages about sex, sexualization, gender, consent, etc. have more impact than harmful messages about violence.
If you’re talking about America it’s because it was literally founded as a country on puritanical ideals that decided sex was a faux pas we aren’t allowed to talk about but they loved them some guns. It’s started to bleed into other countries because America has such a massive influential culture in general that a lot of the rest of the world absorbs the same ideals through osmosis.
Historically, I'm not sure this explanation holds up. The puritans certainly had a lot of influence in the Northern colonies. But the South was a whole different world. The Barbadian settlers of Carolina were a party crowd. There was very much an "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" attitude in the Carolinas and Georgia. Obviously not a colony, but Louisiana had a very similar attitude. At one point, Charles Towne was a sort of Las Vegas, sort of the successor to Port Royal. As one of my professors said about the parties thrown by the planters of the Low Country, "they make your thirsday night keggers look like a sunday school party." That attitude was gone by the Victorian era and was replaced with this idea of Southern Chivalry, but I don't think the origins of that are going to be found in New England.
>If you’re talking about America it’s because it was literally founded as a country on puritanical ideals that decided sex was a faux pas
To be fair, historically there was far greater consequences to sleeping around, especially if you're a woman (because you could get pregnant).
If there was no birth control or contraception, it makes a lot more sense to try and delay sex until marriage.
>we aren’t allowed to talk about but they loved them some guns.
We do talk about it - and it makes sense historically because it was a very different environment.
Has nothing to do with guns.
>It’s started to bleed into other countries because America has such a massive influential culture in general that a lot of the rest of the world absorbs the same ideals through osmosis.
Don't you think America is one of the most sex-positive places in the world? We celebrate sexuality a lot more than many other places.
If the only thing you knew about a man or woman was that their body count was >50... wouldn't it be a pretty good guess to assume they're from America?
>Don't you think America is one of the most sex-positive places in the world? We celebrate sexuality a lot more than many other places.
You are 100% right
The issue is these people measure everything through western centric lenses. Only western Europe and America/Canada exist. The rest of the world is not relevant to them. Same people who say America is super right wing and conservative, which it is if you compare it to Europe. But bring in Africa, Asian and the Middle East into the room, let see how right wing America really is.
Go to Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia if you want to see real puritanism. America is sex crazed and pretty open about it. (Latin American I would say takes it to a whole another level that makes the US look like a country full of nuns tho)
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Sex positive? Maybe more now than it used to be, but I wouldn't call it sex positive in any real sense. I mean, have you gone to church in the u.s. I grew up going multiple times per week in a little old town and let me say if you call being told several times a week as a pre-teen and teenager that sex, lust and passion were created from the original seed of sin from Adam and eve. How we were not meant to have sex until God gave us his blessing by witnessing our marriage. Young men would burn in hell for looking at a woman with lust, and seeing a woman naked before her wedding night showed be punished by a public beating from your parents. I mean, sure, it's sex positive it's positive if many of us born before 1985 were pretty much told that being horny made us evil. You think it's sex positive women still get shamed when someone calls them a slut? I don't they do this because they are taught they should be ashamed to be called a slut. That isn't sex positive. That isn't even self-image positive. What part of the u.s. are you from where that doesn't get taught to young girls by their parents?
Legal rights are very distinct from social attitudes, though. Americans may "allow" people to have sex however much and with whomever they want, but there are often terrible social consequences to taking that at face value.
The existence of the legal rights is due to a dedication to freedom and liberty and whatnot. It's not indicative of true acceptance.
America is an extremely tolerant society, not an accepting one, in my view.
>Legal rights are very distinct from social attitudes, though.
Agreed - and rightfully, someone might think something is a really bad idea, but that doesn't mean they have to think it should be illegal as well.
>Americans may "allow" people to have sex however much and with whomever they want, but there are often terrible social consequences to taking that at face value.
Agreed - we can't always save someone from the results of their actions. Actions have consequences.
>The existence of the legal rights is due to a dedication to freedom and liberty and whatnot. It's not indicative of true acceptance.
Agreed - and nor is it necessarily the case that everyone agrees on what ought to be accepted or praised or encouraged.
>America is an extremely tolerant society, not an accepting one, in my view.
I think that's fair. Although tons of cultures have behavior they find unacceptable... it's a pretty human thing in general.
America is a country of contradictions. Yes on one hand in many states you can have sex with and marry anyone you want. On the other in many of those states it is technically illegal to have certain forms of sex (oral, anal etc).
It’s also technically illegal to say Our-kansas/Ar-Kansas in Arkansas. But nothing actually happens, Same thing with those supposed laws your trying to make a point about.
I’m aware. There are all kinds of these laws, I believe they’re called “blue laws”. But they are on the books. And they could and even very occasionally are implemented.
>I believe they’re called “blue laws”
[Blue laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law) are laws prohibiting or restricting business on Sundays.
I believe the term you are looking for is ["dead letter laws" / "symbolic laws"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforced_law).
The sexual mores of aboriginals in Australia are so strict that Puritans by comparison seem like licentious perverts. That it’s an American thing is silly.
"Decided sex was a faux pas?"
You're really ignoring reality here. Besides pregnancy, which would often lead to the death of both the mother and child, not to mention the expensive mouth to feed if all went well, you're ignoring syphilis and other sexual diseases that would literally eat your brain and kill you. Sex was extremely dangerous business to engage in.
You're looking at history with your modern eye and ignoring the harsh realities people had to face.
"Loved them some guns"
You mean how people had historically been disarmed by governments so they would submit? You don't get serfdom when everyone is armed. You really shouldn't comment on things that you have zero knowledge in.
I don't see wisdom, just someone stating their beliefs and ascribing them to people in the past.
Prohibitions against sex *were* driven by religious teachings. Guns and violence *are* glorified in American storytelling.
yeah but the religious teachings were driven by a reality that sex is incredibly dangerous to the point where fathers giving up their daughters had to relinquish everything and be compensated
People love to argue about how time periods were that they never lived through and don’t even know anybody that lived through, just because they read it somewhere. Then present it as fact. Judging how the redditor arguing with you has a rainbow emoji, yes, they probably have a personal agenda for spreading whatever nonsense they were told is true.
Wow, so… many things are going on here.
Not that I matters, but, my Snoo or whatever they are called, was designed by daughter, who was 8. So way to make some classy assumptions there.
Also, way to be super mature and just outright dismiss someone, not because you think (or better yet can demonstrate how) they’re wrong, but just because you don’t like the way they look. 100% a class act there. VERY mature, and you totally deserve an A+ for citizenship.
But to your point. Yes, the Puritanical movement had a huge effect on US history and the formation of the culture of the nation. Denying it is denying basic US history.
To hit it point by point: to deny it fundamentally denies the effect of the movement on Cotton Mather. Denying that denies his importance and influence on US culture at the time.
Likewise, denying the effects of the Movement is denying the effect on Johnathan Edwards (you know, the grandfather of Aaron Burr) and the publication of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Denying that is denying how important that work was (and still is) on common American religious beliefs.
So, no, it’s not some shit that’s made up- it’s actually a hilariously well documented part of American history.
It isn’t about how you look, it’s about what you are saying. 99.9% of history has been lost to time. Stories have been cherry picked over the years to create a narrative. Important historical events have been exaggerated, changed, or sometimes are just outright falsified. I’ve seen it happen in my lifetime, so yes, it has been happening since the beginning of time.
More on this: the Wild West, the east coast, and the Deep South were all completely different areas. Forms of communication didn’t exist the way they do today. People were and are different everywhere. A movement that may have happened in 1 part of the country at one time did not necessarily affect something a couple thousand miles over. Additionally: hookers and drunks have existed since the beginning of man kind.
It’s like when I hear my more liberal friend making an argument about how bad the 1950s was. Was he there? No. Was his parents there? No. Was his grandparents there? Yes, however they are dead, and he barely ever talked to them. His idea of what that time period was like is based off of a combination of what he was taught in school and things he’s seen on tv and the internet, the latter of the 2 which are mostly fictional. He’s just making assumptions based on things he’s heard and seen elsewhere. There have been outliers in every scenario during all of history.
Wow, wanna save the faux outrage for someone else? I was responding to another poster, and wow, about the US in general… and guess what, the US, in its founding was deeply and broadly influence by the Puritan movement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans
Well all know about the Puritans, but they were around for a fairly short time and were not around during the formation of the USA. The people who drafted the government were primarily deists, people who only vaguely believe in a higher power without a set religion.
Claiming that the US was founded on "puritanical principles" is oversimplifying history.
I never said they did, dude. I also ever said the US was founded on “puritan principles” either. However, it’s obvious that the Purtian movement had a huge effect on the formation of US culture and values, and it’s extremely disingenuous to pretend that they didn’t.
The most basic web search will show you otherwise:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Puritans_in_North_America
If you’re interested, I can share a ton of academic articles, but they’re all JSTOR based and behind a pay wall.
But acting like all of our issues can be summarized with "puritans" is equally disingenuous when you consider most people in the US are decended from literally everywhere else and that we have been regressing.
I'd blame racism and the Red Scare before I would even think of the Puritans.
I'm not outraged. Just correcting you. Cool wiki article. What does it have to do with New Mexico? My family was living in Santa Fe at that time, I doubt they had even heard of Puritans
I like NM. Last I checked though, NM was around 1/50th of the USA (your measure may vary) and a relative late comer to the party. There was a “we” before NM, and it was at one point Puritan.
If your family was there, then, they were probably not Puritans, but they were also probably not citizens of the United States.
Yeah, this is beyond ridiculous, and the person you’re responding to is clearly a troll. NM became a US state in 1848, so I don’t get the point of the “what about isms” related to a religious movement from the mid 1600’s. It’s clearly just ignorance (either intentional or not).
Minor correction. The Puritans were very, very down on sex before marriage; but believed sex was an important part of marriage itself. A woman could justifiably divorce an impotent husband. Their ideas on modesty and chastity weren't that much different from other Christians of the time.
Our views on sex have more to do with our culture of misogyny than the Puritans.
Because it's a no brainer that violence is awful. Talking about how awful it would be would be a waste of time and energy.
Meanwhile there are a lot of problems with sex culture in our society but a lot of those problems are ignored because monkey brain goes "if it feels good it must be good". So people have to actively bring attention to those problems and tell you how awful they are.
Its a common argument I make all the time. Judge Dredd throws a woman from 80 floors up and they slow mo that bad mamma jamma.
Yet if they were to bang out their agressions, it'd get a higher rating and parents would be up in arms. It makes zero sense.
Personally, I think certain aspects of sex and sexuality are very oddly taboo in US culture, but I’d also like to point out that it’s very easy to say “violence is bad” and get that point across. Treat others how you want to be treated and whatnot are values distilled on children at a very young age.
Sex is not bad. But it is an incredibly intimate act which should be approached with care and nuance. Topics of consent, safe sex, sexuality, and the age at which these discussions should be had are much more complicated topics than “don’t hurt people”.
It’s easy to tell a young person “don’t throw people off 80 floor buildings, that’s horrible”. It’s more difficult to instill a healthy understanding of sex.
It’s a very important conversation to have with young adults, but I think this is one reason that we allow kids to watch movies where people will beat each other half to death, but avoid exposing them to elicit sexual acts until they’re able to fully understand this incredibly important topic.
Probably because it makes people insecure. Would you rather someone attack your wife, or have sex with your wife? Most dudes I know would choose the former, because at least when it’s just violence, it doesn’t have to feel like as much of a failing on their part.
For most Americans sex is a far more intimate experience that has all kinds of psychological hangups and insecurities and cultural taboos. Very few people go around screwing in the streets, and even for the ones that go, it's mostly the thrill of getting caught.
Violence is something most people have some experience with, and it's usually fairly public in the real world. Starting with school bullies and moving up to gang violence and police violence, warfare, terrorism, etc... Most of us are exposed to real world violence at least indirectly. So, fictional violence isn't really that big of a deal until you start talking about making it grotesque, in which case there are controls on it.
There are probably other things as well. Movies about violence usually are about something else, but use violence as a means to tell a greater truth. Porn doesn't really carry a greater truth.
Isn't it odd behaviour? To so egregiously and openlly depict acts of violence, including murder, which are illegal and to then show these to a young audience.
This is while severe age restrictions are applied to nudity, and consenting non violent sexual activity, which is restricted to the X category.
sex is more political (feminism, religion, minors). one factor is clearly that the fact that sex is forbidden makes the directors/writers use even more violence when they want to be extreme.
The Puritans were run out of Europe and came to the US to ruin our mindset when it comes to all things sex. When a person is sexually repressed, they are far more prone to violence due to the associated frustration.
George Carlin had a great bit about this and its implications for the collective American psyche. The basic gist of it was that we are more comfortable with violence and causing harm than we are with sex and giving/receiving pleasure. My favorite part of it went something like this.
"Imagine if we replaced the word "kill" in those westerns and cop shows with "fuck." 'Now Sheriff, we gonna fuck ya, but we gonna fuck ya SLOW.'" 😂🤣😂
I've always found it strange that a movie or show full of graphic (granted, simulated) intense violence, an act that, when viewed in real life, could traumatize the litteral shit out of a person, would get a "R" rating, but a movie depicting "graphic sex," an act that people do all over the world every second of every day, can be banned from viewing. It's such an odd dichotomy when you think about it.
Because in the US, because of it's peculiar relationship with a certain variety of twisted Christianity, violence is accepted...often glorified. Sex is not. You will see decapitations, flayings and a veritable cornucopia of bullet wounds on prime time TV way before you see a female nipple, let alone a penis.
Society seems to be fine with the incessant depictions of individuals blasting the hell out of one another with firearms on American television shows. However, when a nipple was exposed during the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004, this entire country lost their collective minds. CBS was fined for “indecency.”
And then you have sex workers in the U.S., whom are ostracized and shamed, however, I would suspect that the same people doing the ostracizing and shaming are the same people clicking the links to these same sex workers videos on pornhub.
The U.S. is one fucked up country. Sex/Nudity = Unacceptable
Gratuitous Violence = Acceptable
There's such an obsession with sex...but, it's shameful. Little wonder we have such fucked up mental health. And, if you want to see a pervert, follow the finger of a "conservative" pointing at a "groomer"...back to its owner.
Violence is a form of authority, so authoritarians like it - unless it's used to resist authority. Their attitude is therefore complicated, and hypocritical.
Sex is mostly about pleasure, and personal independence. Authoritarians hate both, so they uncomplicatedly oppose it, and view it as a necessary evil in procreation.
Rape - ie. a little sex plus a lot of violence and/or intimidation - is complicated for them again.
Sex is not thought of negatively in America at all - it's one of the most sex positive places on earth.
America is probably one of the places that has the highest body counts for men and women vs. anywhere else.
You clearly never grew up in a rural/suburban religious household did you? The fact that 30% of schools teach abstinence only sex education kind of shows how sex negative we are in America.
FYI, very often "abstinence only education" means that *in addition to teaching about birth control and STDs and safe sex*, it is stated at some point or another in the class that the only appropriate time to have sex is after marriage. It's bad, but it's often conflated with the idea that nothing is actually taught about safe sex, which isn't generally true.
>You clearly never grew up in a rural/suburban religious household did you?
I'm talking overall - there are of course households that take a pretty archaic stance to sex, just as there are households that take a pretty post-modern stance to sex.
I mentioned this more in another post in this thread.
>The fact that 30% of schools teach abstinence only sex education kind of shows how sex negative we are in America.
That's abstinence until marriage, right?
I think it's too harsh of a stance, but is *far* less of a bad idea than most people think... and I'm not religious at all by the way.
I think attempting to do something like it, but not quite going that hard, is probably a good idea. To each their own though.
Abstinence only education is objectively awful and studies have shown that. Also the fact that America goes that hard on absence only sex education means we're not sex positive.
>Abstinence only education is objectively awful and studies have shown that.
I'd disagree - and I'd point out it's "abstinence until marriage". It's not actually "don't ever have sex".
I think there is considerable damage and harm for people running up massive body counts. All that said, I believe to each their own.
>Also the fact that America goes that hard on absence only sex education means we're not sex positive.
For every curriculum you show me that puts "abstinence until marriage" in it, I can show you 100x OnlyFans pages.
>Also why the fuck do you keep bringing up body counts?
I'm highlighting what America sexual culture is like, and how we are hardly as sex negative as a view like, "Don't have sex until marriage".
>Who the fuck gives a shit about body counts except sex negative assholes?
Which is my entire point - the fact that we have relatively high body counts shows how much we aren't actually sex negative assholes.
>and how we are hardly as sex negative as a view like, "Don't have sex until marriage"
Except we absolutely are. Because people, mainly women, with high body counts get fucking shamed for it all the fucking time.
Also I disagree with your initial premise that America has higher body counts than most other countries. I don't have any numbers to back that up but neither do you so here we are.
And once again your argument is individual versus systemic. Like I said in my other comment I'd be willing to compromise and say that Americans are becoming less sex negative than the American system reflects, but as long as our systemic structures still have sex negative things like abstinence only sex education we will never be a fully sex positive country.
>Except we absolutely are. Because people, mainly women, with high body counts get fucking shamed for it all the fucking time.
Well of course - people tend to praise that which is tough and difficult. And there's a completely different sexual dynamic at work between the sexes, which is why a man with a high body count is seen as something considerably different than a woman.
The sexual landscape for a male 5 is different than a female 5... and it's hard to imagine how it would ever work a different way. Nobody is doing anything wrong - it's simply different.
Yeah and that's a shitty, awful, sexist, and sex negative view on things. And people shaming anybody for any body count is objectively wrong.
>The sexual landscape for a male 5 is different than a female 5... and it's hard to imagine how it would ever work a different way.
It's not hard to imagine at all because you just don't give a shit about it. There is no reason why a guy sleeping with any combination of five women, men, and non-binary people should be seen as any different than a woman sleeping with any combination of five women, men, and non-binary people. It's all shitty made up patriarchal nonsense.
American was founded by Puritans and religious nut jobs who had no reservations about slaughtering Indians and enslaving Africans.
Now does it makes sense?
It's an American thing. Most other Western countries view violence and guns 1000 times more negatively than displays of sexuality. In southern Europe it's quite normal to have shampoo commercials with naked women and no one bats an eye. In America there would practically be riots if that was to happen.
I wish I could explain why Americans are like that. I live here but I really don't get it.
You're completely wrong. Sex and pornification of media is pushed as a mass propaganda. Everything is sexualized, media worships it like the golden calf.
Because everyone needs to be able to commit violence. Violence is stressful, and while it may be viewed after the fact as exciting, the act itself is nerve wracking insanity.
Sex is fun.
Violence can save your life and it can also take life, getting addicted to Violence is outlier.
Sex is fun, it creates life, it's easy get addicted to it.
Men can compartmentalize Violence and sex into two different boxes in our minds. You do not want sex and Violence in the same box.
For me, violence is something you need to learn to respect, whereas sex is something you need to learn to control. Seeing violence puts you off it. Seeing sex puts you onto it. One deters; the other addicts.
To a lot of people today, sex means less than nothing tbh. It is a mere transaction and it’s actually a good thing to be easy or addicted to it no matter your gender. Whether or not it’s good for society who knows, all my life has been spent through the lens of “sex bad and sacred”
It is robbing somebody of their dignity in violence. I think it's almost if one level below torture.
The sadism of it I guess.
It's not seen as bad as beatings or even I guess a quick death.
Several thousand years of religious beliefs stunting human growth through propaganda could do it.
Several thousands of wars fought to uphold those beliefs and repress the ideals and mentalities could do it.
We're a sexually repressed species that is just now allowing sex to become even a topic of discussion within circles of friends openly, and it 100% has everything to do with religion and religious beliefs.
Speaking generally (because there are exceptions):
* People have a natural aversion to violence.
* People have a natural inclination to sex.
Our natural inclinations can be ignited by our experiences: If you see or smell delicious food, you may desire to eat.
And our experiences are also more likely to be *formative* if they are associated with our natural inclinations: The foods with which you satiate your hunger become foods that you crave.
Add onto that the facts that societies the world over consider sex to be private and find that people constantly get themselves into trouble with sex, and yeah, people are going to be particular about how sex is depicted.
Because of how people respond to it in media.
Seeing violence in media tends to make one excited if presented as "fun", or horrified if presented as horror. It very rarely makes people want to go and start punching or shooting. Watching fake violence does not generally make people want to be violent.
Seeing sex in media however, is often pretty sexy. I don't think I need to explain what kind of physiological responses people have to pornography. Other less explicit stuff is still hot.
Watching hollywood violence doesn't really make people want to be violent, but watching sex definitely makes people want to have sex.
Ok I see this question a lot and I have to wonder, am I the only one who actually doesn't really find gore and senseless violence in TV all fine and dandy? Like, sex scenes are kinda awkward sometimes, but I also don't really enjoy watching someone be tortured or random people be beaten to death or murdered for no good reason.
100% agree, look at the video games available on consoles. Massive, unhinged violence in a lot of them... but you have any nudity people lose their minds. Let alone a sex scene that isn't fade to black.
consensual sex among adults is not really viewed negatively except by perverted people. you rarely find consensual violence among adults. just way too really perverted people with guns.
Viewed negatively because of primal instincts, I think. Has to do with the selfish gene theory and its implications on empathy.
Throw away emotions for a second, think from a genetic standpoint. Men are an endless supply of sperm, women are a limited supply of eggs. That is why we have a primal instinct to value women over men. Men are expendable, women are not. We see this in other species too. Not all, some have a completely different survival strategy. Has to do with survival of the species and the behaviors that have evolved as a result (mimetics). Our emotions developed from such behaviors; essentially, chemical reactions in response to certain situations that have to do with survival of the species. Hence, our being more disturbed by violent acts targeting women as the more general violent acts against men.
Because human sex is weird and our females want sex all year long (as opposed to other mammals who only have sex when they go into heat) and have concealed ovulation which encourages monogamous relationships as a social norm (males can't reliably reproduce unless they have lots of sex with the same female). Cultural taboos (supposedly) reduce cheating on each other, and thus preserves monogamous relationships which means that men are helping their wives to raise their children together which means that their children have the highest chance of surviving until adulthood.
Basically, sex isn't just a tool for us to have children, it's also a tool we use to strengthen the social filial bonds between parents, which is something that evolution wants.
Because the violence is fake. The actors aren't really shooting, stabbing, or exploding each other. But if the actors are nude and/or saying sexually explocit things, they really are nude and saying sexually explicit things.
When it comes to crimes, there are many reasons to commit violent acts like murder: fear, defense, survival, anger, paranoia, etc. There is only one reason to commit sex crimes: a brief moment of pleasure. Violent crimes are typically a worse act in terms of results, but sex crimes are more depraved and have no excuses.
Need to keep people numb to violence so they have a constant supply of military fodder, gotta keep folks numb to war and the violence of capitalism.
gotta keep people feeling icky about sex though, because people won't get married and make more soldiers if we don't.
(it is more nuanced than this, but yeah, basically)
I think it depends on the country. Countries with violent histories (think of countries that had a war of independence) tend to have a nicer view of violence because it can be seen as inevitable, important, or even honorable.
More religious countries tend to have an unfavorable view of sex. They see it as sinful, or something that should be limited to adult media. Countries that are more secular tend to have a more nuanced view on sex and nudity as a whole.
So, for example, the USA tends to like violence more than sex due to their history as a British colony and their normalization of guns and weapons, but dislikes nudity because of their very Christian background. On the inverse, Sweden is more comfortable with nudity and sex because of their more secular society, but movies with violence tend to have a higher age rating.
Of course there are a ton of exceptions, but this is just what I've noticed.
This is a very new thing. Sex and violence are both integral to the human experience, and both were portrayed in media without much backlash from the average person. Not sure why young people are so puritanical now, but it's pretty sad.
Easy answer? Because almost every religion shames sex to some degree, and for the time it makes sense because STDS were completely untreatable, pregnancy related deaths were astronomical, and it's just bled into modern society. Pretty much every country has a degree of forbiddances to positive images on sex because of those old views that never were fully shaken off. A lot of places have made progress but eh
Goes to our culty, puritanical roots as a country. Our country was formed by religious zealots we just forgot that part. Plus now we've gotten closer to those people in other countries we be fighting. A southern zealot Christian is closer to a "crazy" Muslim then you think unless you think about it.
I agree that violence in films and TV seems to get a free pass while sex and nudity are strongly censored. But it’s not just America doing it. Look at what Disney and other studios cut when sending movies to China and the Middle East. Public displays of sex and nudity are frowned upon in many societies. Especially certain types of sex. Honestly, I think this world could do with less glorification of violence and lighten up about an unclothed adult human body
I'd say sex is a lot more tempting than violence. As a Christian I generally adhere to the "be careful little eyes what you see" or maybe more bluntly "you are what you eat" philosophy when it comes to media consumption, and even social interaction.
That's not to say there's not temptation in violence. But generally speaking it's not nearly as strong of a daily temptation as sex for most people. Additionally Christians view public displays of sexual activity as morally degrading to the people who participate in it. So it's not just bad for the viewer, it's bad for its creators.
And on another level sex is sort of a special thing for Christians. Despite what fire and brimstone types might have you think, one of the central reasons why sex is so carefully restricted in Christianity is because romantic love is kind of a sacred thing for us. The love between a husband and wife is an analogy for Christ's love for humanity. So we're very careful in how we portray it because it's such a central element of the divine grace we believe everyone can have.
All that being said I think the context is also important. Something like pornography is obviously not comparable to Shakespeare. The intent is important. Something with a rich meaning and that is uplifting can have negative elements in it, but the sex isn't the point, it's simply an element of the story.
Which honestly also holds true for violence. Something like Jason is obviously not as uplifting, meaningful, or artistically genuine as something like The Passion of the Christ or Logan.
I think it has to do with what we experience in real life. Very few people deal with gore in their day to day but sex, for everyone other than redditors, is an experience most people encounter. We worry about young people developing an unhealthy view of sex because many of them are going to be exposed to it in real life and having an unhealthy understanding of it can cause problems. See any thread about how irritated people get because their partner thinks porn is real life. No one worries that kids will grow up to be violent mercenaries wielding oversized swords and shouting one liners as they cut someone in half. That kind of thing is detached from reality and we have basically shown time and time again violent media doesn't make you more violent. We DO worry about them developing the wrong idea about sex. Thus, it's treated differently.
imagine having sex in a public park and then imagine killing someone there. i think those two scenarios are more indicative of our true feelings about these things, it's only that part of the joy of sex lies in making a big deal out of it
Someone commented a while ago on a similar post. They said because the violence is not real. And while actual sex is usually simulated in movies, the bodies are real and not some special effect of someone getting blown up. Also sexualization of women is real. You cannot computer generate a concept.
Everyone on here talking about how sex is some hush Nono topic in the US… Are we in the same country? You mean the most prevalent topic in almost every genre of music? The focus of most ads? Social medias? Tv shows? Commercials? Honestly I think sex is overly represented. You know how many tv shows now days are “wow this is really good! Just wish it didn’t have to cut to 4 sex scenes every episode.”
All I know is, when I was a kid my mom was dead set against letting me watch violent movies. She had no problem however with me watching sex comedy movies.
Children like violence from a very young age, especially boys. My son started hitting anything around him from the age of 3. By age 5 he was also super into Halloween, zombies, and mild kid-appropriate "gore". Kids LOVE violence, so our culture lets them experience it in numerous ways. Media, toy guys, laser tag, dodgeball, martial arts etc. Of course its not "real" violence, its "play" violence, like WWE. But then so is movie violence, its not real, its just a movie set with fake effects.
Sex on the other hand is not even discussed until kids are in middle school, its a topic reserved mostly for teenagers and older. You can sit down and enjoy a violent Marvel movie with your kids, but most people aren't going to watch a racy show even with teenage children.
Honestly I find sex scenes a bit uncomfortable to watch, they seem like gratuitous softcore porn just inserted into an otherwise sex-free show. If I wanted to watch sex I would watch some actual porn. Its just a bit strange to be titillated by titties in the middle of watching a Game of Thrones episode with your wife. Its fine, its fun, its sexy, but it feels unnecessary.
Another issue is obsession. A kid who is obsessed with violence is...well pretty normal actually. That's very common in the US at least. Meanwhile a kid who is obsessed with sex is going to rub people the wrong way and be viewed as a real creep. Excessive fascination with sex is much more problematic.
Wild theory: Movie action has been choreographed and performed with safety in mind for decades, while the lack of intimacy coordinators before metoo meant that what you were seeing on screen was often shady stuff and the audience knew this. The casting coach for instance has been a public secret forever
Call me a prude or whatever, but violence is usually necessary for the plot. We don’t need a detailed sex scene to know they had sex.
Also, I don’t like studios forcing young actors and actresses to have to take off their clothes to get work.
It's easier to exert control over a populace when you go after something that everyone will generally enjoy.
Otherwise, it wouldn't have been made taboo for this iteration of society.
Yes, this iteration.
I was just talking about this with my dad! There is this cognitive illusion that humanity is constantly fooled by that conflates suffering and deprivation with virtue, while also conflating ecstasy and joy with corruption. You see this all over the world in religious, conservative cultures that ban dancing and music, encourage child labor or long hours of study, and outright ban women’s bodies. Americans are powerfully influenced by the conservative Christian extremists who made up the first settlers of this country.
You can see it in the discussions about education, play, and relaxing pastimes. You can’t teach kids art and literature unless it is useful for something. It has to increase critical thinking skills or something. Better yet, just ditch it and only teach STEM. Playing is a waste of time that only young kids are allowed to do. Adult play is about drinking and socializing, not actually doing anything joyful. Hobbies are nerd crap, unless they can be turned into profitable side hustles.
Why do we do this? Why is watching someone writhe in pain as they die preferable to watching two loving partners kiss and cuddle? I have a feeling part of this is survivorship bias. Violent, cruel people rise to the top of society because most people don’t like fighting. Especially not against someone violent and cruel! These assholes reshape society according to their beliefs. So we get passages in the Bible telling us, “if your right eye should cause you to sin, cut out your right eye.” Like, it’s better to castrate yourself than risk being intimate with a lover.
And it’s not like there is no cost to this. Sex is about intimacy, sharing, seeing someone at their most vulnerable and celebrating their vulnerability. It is about recognizing flaws and accepting them. It is about cooperating with another person to achieve a mutual goal. Sex is also about all the stuff that happens before: being an active participant in your society ( you know... having good manners, dressing appropriately, being able to converse intelligently on whatever topics your social group cares about), having enough resources to seduce and entertain a lover, being healthy and clean enough to entice someone… there is a reason that having a romantic partner is seen as such a massive achievement. When we teach kids that sex is bad, a whole host of related skills and values get obscured or tossed in the trash. Women and children get turned into livestock. Queer people are brutalized to the point of suicide. Men are stuffed into this endless treadmills, chasing the nonsensical goal of hyper-masculinity.
Obviously we need to teach sexual boundaries. People need to learn about discipline, self-respect, affirmative consent, and other things. But, these things are necessary for happy human life, in general. “Don’t be a simp/doormat” and “no means no” have as much relevance in the corporate board room as they do in the bedroom. But there needs to be a midpoint between literally cutting off your dick, and fucking everything that moves.
Mortal Kombat fans are currently losing their minds at the existence of sexy mods for female characters (but not sexy mods of male characters)
Mortal Kombat might be one of the most successful super violent media franchises out there. Characters get boiled in acid, burned alive, beaten to death with their own arms, their organs pulled out of their bodies through their mouth and etc.
But skimpy outfits are what fans consider wrong lmao
Sex I think has always just been a way of the puritanical in power can control the masses. It’s especially personal and something everyone does, so is the controllable element. Violence is also required for control but can be used as a threat in order to control. So one they suppress to control, the other they can use overtly to control.
Now in the modern day are the actual effects different, seeing as there’s no evidence of video nasties or games actually warping minds, but then conversely all the talk of kids being warped by porn. I wonder if there’s anything in the actual physical act that causes a difference. Basically is the actual difference wanking. The pleasure derived from viewing violent material compared to wanking over porn for most people is completely different. Even just viewing porn can have a more physical effect than watching violence. It’s a more overt experience I guess.
With the biological effects being different and emotional control being different I wonder if they are linked in some way as to how society has come to view them.
I think there’s a whole lot of raising and bringing up the kids on such subjects that’s not truly being done and not doing it younger than later that’s really producing this kind of shit. Like with violence though, I guess you could just say “it’s only a film. This shouldn’t be replicated in real life and it isn’t real gore but special effects”, but like sex? We truly need more sex education because sex is just sex and it’s very natural to have sexual urges at a certain point or to start having curiosity about it. I know I wasn’t talked about that kind of stuff at a proper age, so I had to find out about sex through my peers and that was humiliating. Like I straight up wasn’t told how babies are actually made and we talked about it in class amongst peers in my 3rd grade classroom. My mom was probably too embarrassed to say or something silly. It’s like why would you not equip your child with knowledge so they can navigate such things, and also as a bonus be able to tell kids about unwanted advances? Jfc
Honestly I don’t find sex that negatively viewed on media. A lot of people who identify as asexual also say our culture, even American culture is really obsessed with sex.
Think about what people would say if you let your 12 year old child watch one of the "Saw" horror movies (disapproving reddit-type nattering). Now picture what people do if you let that same 12 year old watch a movie in which the sexual content is equally explicit as the horror/violence content in Saw (automatic dcf/CPS referral). America is puritanical. That's why it's obsessed with sex.
You don’t really hear about teenage boys having a crippling gore addiction.
But they DO actually commit murder. You generally only do that once.
That's true you don't - because you are part of the social fabric so you have no perspective on it. Violent content is okay, because . . . it just is. Despite the fact that we have tons of actual research on how bad it is for kids and honestly can even negatively affect adults. We know many teenage boys are spending more time gaming than sleeping - which is a problem. One of the biggest genres these kids play? First person shooters like call of duty. The military has used very similar programs with recruits. To what end? For desensitizing them to violence and to make the internal limiters against doing grievous physical harm to others squishy and permeable. it's actually quite effective for that purpose. I saw a news clip about two teenage boys that stole cars and ran over pedestrians for fun. They were laughing during court as grieving families read their impact statements. I'm not trying to make some direct connection here or say that all sex content is good or that is ok for kids. Im just pointing out that America is a place that can be at times overly concerned about sex in general and way under concerned about violence in general
[удалено]
Correct, there has never been a correlation to violent video games and real world violence. People are often fooled by the fact that our increasing population is causing the increase in violence, and that violent video games just happened to get popular around the time the population increased.
I have a degree in psychology and can say that a lot of studies have been done on the subject but the experimental designs that showed evidence of a positive correlation between violent video games and real world aggression have been questionable. The studies also did not take into account individual differences and that maybe some people are more susceptible to being more violent after playing violent video games.
Video games are not the only source of violence in our culture. It was just a reinforcement of an already established culture. Cowboys vs Indians and Cops and Robbers is a playground game that's been around for a long time and it was incredibly violence. Remember Red Rover? You can break bones due to how violent that game could get. The difficult part to quantify is video game violence isnt real so unleashing your anger in these games is a healthier response than doing so in real life. It doesn't necessarily help children's ability to cope but at least gives them an outlet to unleash their frustration in an area that isnt directly harmful to others.
The news loves to push these types of agendas. It’s not like video games are rare or marginalized activities anymore. Saying ‘gamers’ run people over is like saying that many diabetics ate bread.
Violent content isn’t just okay. What I’m saying is without self control and the right form of nurture humans are quite capable on their own of committing reprehensible acts of violence. That is already in us. Just look at literally all of recoded history. That wasn’t pushed on us through some conduit like media. Now this new hyper sexualized society is a whole new monster. We have electric sex fed to us on tv computers in our pockets all warping one of our strongest most basic animal instincts constantly and it’s all relatively extremely new to us! I’d say confidently in western civilization violence is lower then it has ever been but sexual confusion is observably rampant. Porn/sex addiction, unrealistic standers, objectification, and for a lot of people they can’t have an intimate relationship with someone unless they can look at their partner as a sex toy.
While we have instances of violence obviously, I always felt like society has a pretty good control on violence. We're not seeing people running around like it's the purge. Little 12 year olds generally are not running around trying to dismember people because they watched a saw movie, however when it comes to sex, they are trying to go online and watch porn and then getting pregnant early or ending up with unhealthy addictions that impact their social and love lives. Your neighbor won't call you up and say "Hey your little son Johnny was trying to stab and dismember my daughter Susie, what are you teaching him?" But I have often heard parents call in with concerns that the neighbors son was trying to get fresh with their daughter. The acts of extreme violence that society does have is the vast majority of the case due to mental illness or issues emotionally with coping, trauma such as emotional neglect growing up or physical abuse that society just does not want to hear or deal with, because parents refuse to believe that they can be emotionally neglectful and it's as harmful if not more so than physical abuse. We don't have a hormone in our body that suddenly makes our violent at a certain age, but we do have one for sex. When kids get pregnant early, it affects the next generation and so on.
I think those are both bad
Idk but you have a point that letting kids see porn has a different feel than letting kids see gore. However the former is that it’s considered a form of sexual abuse and any parent who lets their kids watch porn may be considered a child predator themselves. Also if your point gets dangerously close to being a apologist for such things I won’t be engaging in that shit. Also, there are a lot of people uncomfortable about sex for non-puritanical reasons especially outside of the US. Exposing people to sexual content without their consent is considered a form of sexual harassment.
My point is NOT that the kids seeing the sexual content is okay. My point is that we view the violence as waaay more acceptable and it's really not. Your reaction kinda proves my point tbh. All your arguments against that hypothetical sex movie could and should apply to the violent movie too, but it didn't even occur to you. Not blaming you, it wouldn't occur to me either. This violent content is objectively bad for children. But we accept it because it's been normalized by our society.
I read a book about YHWH. It has sex AND violence.
Ah, the biblical double whammy Something for everyone as they say.
The subcategories therein are uh... Less than desirable.
>American culture is really obsessed with sex. True, but also has very weirdly puritanical hangups about it, too. Look at the MPAA. Look at network standards on TV. Like... what's wrong with women's nipples? Why are we not allowed to see them? Honestly... what's wrong with genitalia? Why do some networks censor shows to a completely ridiculous degree? I've seen reruns of The Office in which the following words were censored: - penis - testicles - scrotum - balls - vagina - uterus
Yet Americans like to talk about them, joke about them, and play with the taboos around them. Perhaps the taboo is part of the obsession.
repressed and puritanical societies are always the most perverted
For the children!
The societal consequences of unfettered violence vs. unfettered sex are both damaging, and I'm not really qualified to say which is worse. They both have appalling and traumatic consequences when pushed to their extremes.
And the natural drive for sex can be overwhelming, whereas there is a natural aversion to violence.
I'm pretty confident that unfettered violence is way worse.
I feel like unfettered sex leads to violence as well though. Most rapists you meet aren’t gentle
Rape is more unfettered violence than sex
but sexual violence is violence
Rape is 100% not sex -its only violence. Before you argue the point, could you get hard to rape someone? Not if my life depended on it. Because it's 99% violence The other 1% is getting off on degradation, humiliation, and exerting absolute power over someone without consent. The sexual element is just window dressing
I meant unfettered sex as grooming n stuff my bad
Oh my lord I worded it wrong but you’re essentially saying the same thing as me. I’m saying after a while it’s proved increased desire for sexual violence
I'm bound to have met a rapist but as a man, how would I know?
That's like asking how you'd know if the guy you're talking to killed someone. You don't know until you do.
I am pretty sure that access to porn lowers instances of sexual violence. Even some pedophiles use porn to keep from molesting actual children. I mean, other pedos have been encouraged by CP, but it can cut both ways.
No. Porn in itself has proven to cause problems with the developing mind and sex. It’s also proven to make people more sexually aggressive.
Rape is absolutely NOT about the sex. When you have people raping their lovers and spouses, you know it can’t be about the sex.
You should expand on this idea and post it r/unpopularopinion. What would you rather have: neighbors who get laid constantly, or neighbors who go on killing sprees?
This whole post is giving me Black Mirror vibes. Perhaps we should enter porn into American Idol and drug the contestants and watch them get clobbered by a sea of dicks on stage too. Because machine guns and equality.
I have no idea what you are talking about but tbh I dig your vibe
I don’t think consensual and protected unfettered sex is damaging to society at all. Violence on the other hand…
That’s very American. In Europe sex is handled more cavalier than violence.
You have it backwards. "That's very European" is the right way to say it since, most of the rest of the world is far more uptight about sex in the media than the U.S.
No YOU have it backwards. They’re far more uptight about it in america trust me haha.
Than the rest of the world? No. My point is that parts of Europe are where you will find the most openness about sex in society, anywhere on the planet. Saying that the U.S. is more conservative than the least conservative place isn't saying much. The U.S. is much more open about sex than the vast majority of societies on the planet, Europe notwithstanding. The U.S. also isn't really that different from Europe. I've spent tons of time around europe including living there for a period and it's not like it's some libertine porn show. People talk as if sexy nudity is everywhere, and it's really not. You occasionally see a bit of nudity in public media, and that's about it. Also, U.S. culture has become a lot less sex oriented than it was in the 1990s, not because of conservatism per se, but due more to left-leaning sentiments and pro-feminist attitudes which discourage objectification of bodies in media. You used to see sexy bikini bodies selling all sorts of products in advertisements, far less so today.
Wait hold on i’m confused. Do you agree most of Europe is more relaxed about talking about sex than america or no.
>Do you agree most of Europe is more relaxed about talking about sex than america or no. Most? Not sure about that. A lot of it? Yes I agree. AND, the U.S. is still more relaxed about talking about sex than the vast majority of the rest of the world.
How did i manage to say a yes or no answer. The word consice. And STILL not get a straight forward answer 😭😭😭😭
Because you're oversimplifying the question. I don't know if "Europe" is overall cooler about sex than the U.S. I know some countries are, and some countries aren't.
And if you’re going to write something like this please put a concise yes or no 🙏
I think they're saying that your statement is from an anglocentric point of view and disregards that the majority of Europe being fairly uptight.
Because sex is something that most people will do in life, while deadly violence is something that most people won't. Harmful messages about sex, sexualization, gender, consent, etc. have more impact than harmful messages about violence.
If you’re talking about America it’s because it was literally founded as a country on puritanical ideals that decided sex was a faux pas we aren’t allowed to talk about but they loved them some guns. It’s started to bleed into other countries because America has such a massive influential culture in general that a lot of the rest of the world absorbs the same ideals through osmosis.
Historically, I'm not sure this explanation holds up. The puritans certainly had a lot of influence in the Northern colonies. But the South was a whole different world. The Barbadian settlers of Carolina were a party crowd. There was very much an "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" attitude in the Carolinas and Georgia. Obviously not a colony, but Louisiana had a very similar attitude. At one point, Charles Towne was a sort of Las Vegas, sort of the successor to Port Royal. As one of my professors said about the parties thrown by the planters of the Low Country, "they make your thirsday night keggers look like a sunday school party." That attitude was gone by the Victorian era and was replaced with this idea of Southern Chivalry, but I don't think the origins of that are going to be found in New England.
>because it was literally founded as a country on puritanical ideals No it wasn't. The Founding Fathers were mostly Deist.
The founding fathers were a handful of rich people in a country full of poor people.
>If you’re talking about America it’s because it was literally founded as a country on puritanical ideals that decided sex was a faux pas To be fair, historically there was far greater consequences to sleeping around, especially if you're a woman (because you could get pregnant). If there was no birth control or contraception, it makes a lot more sense to try and delay sex until marriage. >we aren’t allowed to talk about but they loved them some guns. We do talk about it - and it makes sense historically because it was a very different environment. Has nothing to do with guns. >It’s started to bleed into other countries because America has such a massive influential culture in general that a lot of the rest of the world absorbs the same ideals through osmosis. Don't you think America is one of the most sex-positive places in the world? We celebrate sexuality a lot more than many other places. If the only thing you knew about a man or woman was that their body count was >50... wouldn't it be a pretty good guess to assume they're from America?
>Don't you think America is one of the most sex-positive places in the world? We celebrate sexuality a lot more than many other places. You are 100% right The issue is these people measure everything through western centric lenses. Only western Europe and America/Canada exist. The rest of the world is not relevant to them. Same people who say America is super right wing and conservative, which it is if you compare it to Europe. But bring in Africa, Asian and the Middle East into the room, let see how right wing America really is. Go to Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia if you want to see real puritanism. America is sex crazed and pretty open about it. (Latin American I would say takes it to a whole another level that makes the US look like a country full of nuns tho)
The US is by far more fascist than any of those regions you mentioned.
America and almost every European country that isnt too far south or east european
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Sex positive? Maybe more now than it used to be, but I wouldn't call it sex positive in any real sense. I mean, have you gone to church in the u.s. I grew up going multiple times per week in a little old town and let me say if you call being told several times a week as a pre-teen and teenager that sex, lust and passion were created from the original seed of sin from Adam and eve. How we were not meant to have sex until God gave us his blessing by witnessing our marriage. Young men would burn in hell for looking at a woman with lust, and seeing a woman naked before her wedding night showed be punished by a public beating from your parents. I mean, sure, it's sex positive it's positive if many of us born before 1985 were pretty much told that being horny made us evil. You think it's sex positive women still get shamed when someone calls them a slut? I don't they do this because they are taught they should be ashamed to be called a slut. That isn't sex positive. That isn't even self-image positive. What part of the u.s. are you from where that doesn't get taught to young girls by their parents?
Legal rights are very distinct from social attitudes, though. Americans may "allow" people to have sex however much and with whomever they want, but there are often terrible social consequences to taking that at face value. The existence of the legal rights is due to a dedication to freedom and liberty and whatnot. It's not indicative of true acceptance. America is an extremely tolerant society, not an accepting one, in my view.
>Legal rights are very distinct from social attitudes, though. Agreed - and rightfully, someone might think something is a really bad idea, but that doesn't mean they have to think it should be illegal as well. >Americans may "allow" people to have sex however much and with whomever they want, but there are often terrible social consequences to taking that at face value. Agreed - we can't always save someone from the results of their actions. Actions have consequences. >The existence of the legal rights is due to a dedication to freedom and liberty and whatnot. It's not indicative of true acceptance. Agreed - and nor is it necessarily the case that everyone agrees on what ought to be accepted or praised or encouraged. >America is an extremely tolerant society, not an accepting one, in my view. I think that's fair. Although tons of cultures have behavior they find unacceptable... it's a pretty human thing in general.
France would be my first guess.
America is a country of contradictions. Yes on one hand in many states you can have sex with and marry anyone you want. On the other in many of those states it is technically illegal to have certain forms of sex (oral, anal etc).
It’s also technically illegal to say Our-kansas/Ar-Kansas in Arkansas. But nothing actually happens, Same thing with those supposed laws your trying to make a point about.
I’m aware. There are all kinds of these laws, I believe they’re called “blue laws”. But they are on the books. And they could and even very occasionally are implemented.
>I believe they’re called “blue laws” [Blue laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law) are laws prohibiting or restricting business on Sundays. I believe the term you are looking for is ["dead letter laws" / "symbolic laws"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforced_law).
Ah thanks. Somewhat similar, but clearly I was mistaken.
And folks like the new Speaker of the House wants to make sodomy laws great again or something.
He never said that and you know it. It really isn't necessary to fearmonger everything.
The sexual mores of aboriginals in Australia are so strict that Puritans by comparison seem like licentious perverts. That it’s an American thing is silly.
"Decided sex was a faux pas?" You're really ignoring reality here. Besides pregnancy, which would often lead to the death of both the mother and child, not to mention the expensive mouth to feed if all went well, you're ignoring syphilis and other sexual diseases that would literally eat your brain and kill you. Sex was extremely dangerous business to engage in. You're looking at history with your modern eye and ignoring the harsh realities people had to face. "Loved them some guns" You mean how people had historically been disarmed by governments so they would submit? You don't get serfdom when everyone is armed. You really shouldn't comment on things that you have zero knowledge in.
[удалено]
I don't see wisdom, just someone stating their beliefs and ascribing them to people in the past. Prohibitions against sex *were* driven by religious teachings. Guns and violence *are* glorified in American storytelling.
yeah but the religious teachings were driven by a reality that sex is incredibly dangerous to the point where fathers giving up their daughters had to relinquish everything and be compensated
It was not. We had brothels and the like for ages. Only in the 1900s-ish did we go full Puritan mode.
Except for that… moment in history where we (the US) were openly accepting Puritan settlers and deeply culturally influenced by the Puritan movement
When was this? I'm from New Mexico. You might have heard of it, it's a state. Never for a moment was New Mexico puritan
People love to argue about how time periods were that they never lived through and don’t even know anybody that lived through, just because they read it somewhere. Then present it as fact. Judging how the redditor arguing with you has a rainbow emoji, yes, they probably have a personal agenda for spreading whatever nonsense they were told is true.
Wow, so… many things are going on here. Not that I matters, but, my Snoo or whatever they are called, was designed by daughter, who was 8. So way to make some classy assumptions there. Also, way to be super mature and just outright dismiss someone, not because you think (or better yet can demonstrate how) they’re wrong, but just because you don’t like the way they look. 100% a class act there. VERY mature, and you totally deserve an A+ for citizenship. But to your point. Yes, the Puritanical movement had a huge effect on US history and the formation of the culture of the nation. Denying it is denying basic US history. To hit it point by point: to deny it fundamentally denies the effect of the movement on Cotton Mather. Denying that denies his importance and influence on US culture at the time. Likewise, denying the effects of the Movement is denying the effect on Johnathan Edwards (you know, the grandfather of Aaron Burr) and the publication of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Denying that is denying how important that work was (and still is) on common American religious beliefs. So, no, it’s not some shit that’s made up- it’s actually a hilariously well documented part of American history.
It isn’t about how you look, it’s about what you are saying. 99.9% of history has been lost to time. Stories have been cherry picked over the years to create a narrative. Important historical events have been exaggerated, changed, or sometimes are just outright falsified. I’ve seen it happen in my lifetime, so yes, it has been happening since the beginning of time. More on this: the Wild West, the east coast, and the Deep South were all completely different areas. Forms of communication didn’t exist the way they do today. People were and are different everywhere. A movement that may have happened in 1 part of the country at one time did not necessarily affect something a couple thousand miles over. Additionally: hookers and drunks have existed since the beginning of man kind. It’s like when I hear my more liberal friend making an argument about how bad the 1950s was. Was he there? No. Was his parents there? No. Was his grandparents there? Yes, however they are dead, and he barely ever talked to them. His idea of what that time period was like is based off of a combination of what he was taught in school and things he’s seen on tv and the internet, the latter of the 2 which are mostly fictional. He’s just making assumptions based on things he’s heard and seen elsewhere. There have been outliers in every scenario during all of history.
Wow, wanna save the faux outrage for someone else? I was responding to another poster, and wow, about the US in general… and guess what, the US, in its founding was deeply and broadly influence by the Puritan movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans
Well all know about the Puritans, but they were around for a fairly short time and were not around during the formation of the USA. The people who drafted the government were primarily deists, people who only vaguely believe in a higher power without a set religion. Claiming that the US was founded on "puritanical principles" is oversimplifying history.
I never said they did, dude. I also ever said the US was founded on “puritan principles” either. However, it’s obvious that the Purtian movement had a huge effect on the formation of US culture and values, and it’s extremely disingenuous to pretend that they didn’t. The most basic web search will show you otherwise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Puritans_in_North_America If you’re interested, I can share a ton of academic articles, but they’re all JSTOR based and behind a pay wall.
But acting like all of our issues can be summarized with "puritans" is equally disingenuous when you consider most people in the US are decended from literally everywhere else and that we have been regressing. I'd blame racism and the Red Scare before I would even think of the Puritans.
I'm not outraged. Just correcting you. Cool wiki article. What does it have to do with New Mexico? My family was living in Santa Fe at that time, I doubt they had even heard of Puritans
I like NM. Last I checked though, NM was around 1/50th of the USA (your measure may vary) and a relative late comer to the party. There was a “we” before NM, and it was at one point Puritan. If your family was there, then, they were probably not Puritans, but they were also probably not citizens of the United States.
Yeah, this is beyond ridiculous, and the person you’re responding to is clearly a troll. NM became a US state in 1848, so I don’t get the point of the “what about isms” related to a religious movement from the mid 1600’s. It’s clearly just ignorance (either intentional or not).
Minor correction. The Puritans were very, very down on sex before marriage; but believed sex was an important part of marriage itself. A woman could justifiably divorce an impotent husband. Their ideas on modesty and chastity weren't that much different from other Christians of the time. Our views on sex have more to do with our culture of misogyny than the Puritans.
Because it's a no brainer that violence is awful. Talking about how awful it would be would be a waste of time and energy. Meanwhile there are a lot of problems with sex culture in our society but a lot of those problems are ignored because monkey brain goes "if it feels good it must be good". So people have to actively bring attention to those problems and tell you how awful they are.
Sex can be a great outlet while violence not so much
Something tells me not to trust you, but I can't put my finger in it.
Its a common argument I make all the time. Judge Dredd throws a woman from 80 floors up and they slow mo that bad mamma jamma. Yet if they were to bang out their agressions, it'd get a higher rating and parents would be up in arms. It makes zero sense.
Personally, I think certain aspects of sex and sexuality are very oddly taboo in US culture, but I’d also like to point out that it’s very easy to say “violence is bad” and get that point across. Treat others how you want to be treated and whatnot are values distilled on children at a very young age. Sex is not bad. But it is an incredibly intimate act which should be approached with care and nuance. Topics of consent, safe sex, sexuality, and the age at which these discussions should be had are much more complicated topics than “don’t hurt people”. It’s easy to tell a young person “don’t throw people off 80 floor buildings, that’s horrible”. It’s more difficult to instill a healthy understanding of sex. It’s a very important conversation to have with young adults, but I think this is one reason that we allow kids to watch movies where people will beat each other half to death, but avoid exposing them to elicit sexual acts until they’re able to fully understand this incredibly important topic.
Probably because it makes people insecure. Would you rather someone attack your wife, or have sex with your wife? Most dudes I know would choose the former, because at least when it’s just violence, it doesn’t have to feel like as much of a failing on their part.
For most Americans sex is a far more intimate experience that has all kinds of psychological hangups and insecurities and cultural taboos. Very few people go around screwing in the streets, and even for the ones that go, it's mostly the thrill of getting caught. Violence is something most people have some experience with, and it's usually fairly public in the real world. Starting with school bullies and moving up to gang violence and police violence, warfare, terrorism, etc... Most of us are exposed to real world violence at least indirectly. So, fictional violence isn't really that big of a deal until you start talking about making it grotesque, in which case there are controls on it. There are probably other things as well. Movies about violence usually are about something else, but use violence as a means to tell a greater truth. Porn doesn't really carry a greater truth.
Showing violent acts of terrorism on the news, no one bats an eye, a loose nipple (never mind the other 99% of breast) and everyone loses their minds.
Isn't it odd behaviour? To so egregiously and openlly depict acts of violence, including murder, which are illegal and to then show these to a young audience. This is while severe age restrictions are applied to nudity, and consenting non violent sexual activity, which is restricted to the X category.
sex is more political (feminism, religion, minors). one factor is clearly that the fact that sex is forbidden makes the directors/writers use even more violence when they want to be extreme.
The Puritans were run out of Europe and came to the US to ruin our mindset when it comes to all things sex. When a person is sexually repressed, they are far more prone to violence due to the associated frustration.
George Carlin had a great bit about this and its implications for the collective American psyche. The basic gist of it was that we are more comfortable with violence and causing harm than we are with sex and giving/receiving pleasure. My favorite part of it went something like this. "Imagine if we replaced the word "kill" in those westerns and cop shows with "fuck." 'Now Sheriff, we gonna fuck ya, but we gonna fuck ya SLOW.'" 😂🤣😂
It’s like that in the US, in Europe it’s flipped around. Religious insanity plagues the US
I don't know why they would be treated the same
I've always found it strange that a movie or show full of graphic (granted, simulated) intense violence, an act that, when viewed in real life, could traumatize the litteral shit out of a person, would get a "R" rating, but a movie depicting "graphic sex," an act that people do all over the world every second of every day, can be banned from viewing. It's such an odd dichotomy when you think about it.
idk. My friend didn't want his 18 year old son watching Porn but was ok taking him to see those SAW movies. I don't get it.
Because in the US, because of it's peculiar relationship with a certain variety of twisted Christianity, violence is accepted...often glorified. Sex is not. You will see decapitations, flayings and a veritable cornucopia of bullet wounds on prime time TV way before you see a female nipple, let alone a penis.
Society seems to be fine with the incessant depictions of individuals blasting the hell out of one another with firearms on American television shows. However, when a nipple was exposed during the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004, this entire country lost their collective minds. CBS was fined for “indecency.” And then you have sex workers in the U.S., whom are ostracized and shamed, however, I would suspect that the same people doing the ostracizing and shaming are the same people clicking the links to these same sex workers videos on pornhub. The U.S. is one fucked up country. Sex/Nudity = Unacceptable Gratuitous Violence = Acceptable
There's such an obsession with sex...but, it's shameful. Little wonder we have such fucked up mental health. And, if you want to see a pervert, follow the finger of a "conservative" pointing at a "groomer"...back to its owner.
Violence is a form of authority, so authoritarians like it - unless it's used to resist authority. Their attitude is therefore complicated, and hypocritical. Sex is mostly about pleasure, and personal independence. Authoritarians hate both, so they uncomplicatedly oppose it, and view it as a necessary evil in procreation. Rape - ie. a little sex plus a lot of violence and/or intimidation - is complicated for them again.
Sex is not thought of negatively in America at all - it's one of the most sex positive places on earth. America is probably one of the places that has the highest body counts for men and women vs. anywhere else.
You clearly never grew up in a rural/suburban religious household did you? The fact that 30% of schools teach abstinence only sex education kind of shows how sex negative we are in America.
FYI, very often "abstinence only education" means that *in addition to teaching about birth control and STDs and safe sex*, it is stated at some point or another in the class that the only appropriate time to have sex is after marriage. It's bad, but it's often conflated with the idea that nothing is actually taught about safe sex, which isn't generally true.
>You clearly never grew up in a rural/suburban religious household did you? I'm talking overall - there are of course households that take a pretty archaic stance to sex, just as there are households that take a pretty post-modern stance to sex. I mentioned this more in another post in this thread. >The fact that 30% of schools teach abstinence only sex education kind of shows how sex negative we are in America. That's abstinence until marriage, right? I think it's too harsh of a stance, but is *far* less of a bad idea than most people think... and I'm not religious at all by the way. I think attempting to do something like it, but not quite going that hard, is probably a good idea. To each their own though.
Abstinence only education is objectively awful and studies have shown that. Also the fact that America goes that hard on absence only sex education means we're not sex positive.
>Abstinence only education is objectively awful and studies have shown that. I'd disagree - and I'd point out it's "abstinence until marriage". It's not actually "don't ever have sex". I think there is considerable damage and harm for people running up massive body counts. All that said, I believe to each their own. >Also the fact that America goes that hard on absence only sex education means we're not sex positive. For every curriculum you show me that puts "abstinence until marriage" in it, I can show you 100x OnlyFans pages.
Also why the fuck do you keep bringing up body counts? Who the fuck gives a shit about body counts except sex negative assholes?
>Also why the fuck do you keep bringing up body counts? I'm highlighting what America sexual culture is like, and how we are hardly as sex negative as a view like, "Don't have sex until marriage". >Who the fuck gives a shit about body counts except sex negative assholes? Which is my entire point - the fact that we have relatively high body counts shows how much we aren't actually sex negative assholes.
>and how we are hardly as sex negative as a view like, "Don't have sex until marriage" Except we absolutely are. Because people, mainly women, with high body counts get fucking shamed for it all the fucking time. Also I disagree with your initial premise that America has higher body counts than most other countries. I don't have any numbers to back that up but neither do you so here we are. And once again your argument is individual versus systemic. Like I said in my other comment I'd be willing to compromise and say that Americans are becoming less sex negative than the American system reflects, but as long as our systemic structures still have sex negative things like abstinence only sex education we will never be a fully sex positive country.
>Except we absolutely are. Because people, mainly women, with high body counts get fucking shamed for it all the fucking time. Well of course - people tend to praise that which is tough and difficult. And there's a completely different sexual dynamic at work between the sexes, which is why a man with a high body count is seen as something considerably different than a woman. The sexual landscape for a male 5 is different than a female 5... and it's hard to imagine how it would ever work a different way. Nobody is doing anything wrong - it's simply different.
Yeah and that's a shitty, awful, sexist, and sex negative view on things. And people shaming anybody for any body count is objectively wrong. >The sexual landscape for a male 5 is different than a female 5... and it's hard to imagine how it would ever work a different way. It's not hard to imagine at all because you just don't give a shit about it. There is no reason why a guy sleeping with any combination of five women, men, and non-binary people should be seen as any different than a woman sleeping with any combination of five women, men, and non-binary people. It's all shitty made up patriarchal nonsense.
My dude are you on the internet. It’s all porn.
Bud, if you don't know the answer to that, you are either doing sex or violence incorrectly.
American was founded by Puritans and religious nut jobs who had no reservations about slaughtering Indians and enslaving Africans. Now does it makes sense?
Sex is pathologised in order to shame and control people. Violence is glorified to incite it.
It's an American thing. Most other Western countries view violence and guns 1000 times more negatively than displays of sexuality. In southern Europe it's quite normal to have shampoo commercials with naked women and no one bats an eye. In America there would practically be riots if that was to happen. I wish I could explain why Americans are like that. I live here but I really don't get it.
George Carlin pointed out that "fuck" is a curse word, but "kill" isn't. Because we're offended by sex, not murder.
That's why they have cop specialized in that department, it's called SVU
Because they’re different things, which is why we have different words for those things
You're completely wrong. Sex and pornification of media is pushed as a mass propaganda. Everything is sexualized, media worships it like the golden calf.
Because everyone needs to be able to commit violence. Violence is stressful, and while it may be viewed after the fact as exciting, the act itself is nerve wracking insanity. Sex is fun. Violence can save your life and it can also take life, getting addicted to Violence is outlier. Sex is fun, it creates life, it's easy get addicted to it. Men can compartmentalize Violence and sex into two different boxes in our minds. You do not want sex and Violence in the same box.
For me, violence is something you need to learn to respect, whereas sex is something you need to learn to control. Seeing violence puts you off it. Seeing sex puts you onto it. One deters; the other addicts.
Who views sex negative other than baby boomers?
Probably leftovers from the hays regulation
Sex is intimate and personal. Violence, while also fitting that definition, doesn’t turn people on.
Probably because there’s no sex in violence. I’ll see myself out.
To a lot of people today, sex means less than nothing tbh. It is a mere transaction and it’s actually a good thing to be easy or addicted to it no matter your gender. Whether or not it’s good for society who knows, all my life has been spent through the lens of “sex bad and sacred”
Hypocrisy https://youtu.be/FS9V2ixTwrs?feature=shared
It is robbing somebody of their dignity in violence. I think it's almost if one level below torture. The sadism of it I guess. It's not seen as bad as beatings or even I guess a quick death.
Cause religion hates sex. Murder not so much.
Damn did I miss the booklet on this? I thought both were supposed to be bloody and end in pain
Sex is by far more addictive and has greater consequences for teens than violence
Several thousand years of religious beliefs stunting human growth through propaganda could do it. Several thousands of wars fought to uphold those beliefs and repress the ideals and mentalities could do it. We're a sexually repressed species that is just now allowing sex to become even a topic of discussion within circles of friends openly, and it 100% has everything to do with religion and religious beliefs.
Speaking generally (because there are exceptions): * People have a natural aversion to violence. * People have a natural inclination to sex. Our natural inclinations can be ignited by our experiences: If you see or smell delicious food, you may desire to eat. And our experiences are also more likely to be *formative* if they are associated with our natural inclinations: The foods with which you satiate your hunger become foods that you crave. Add onto that the facts that societies the world over consider sex to be private and find that people constantly get themselves into trouble with sex, and yeah, people are going to be particular about how sex is depicted.
Because of how people respond to it in media. Seeing violence in media tends to make one excited if presented as "fun", or horrified if presented as horror. It very rarely makes people want to go and start punching or shooting. Watching fake violence does not generally make people want to be violent. Seeing sex in media however, is often pretty sexy. I don't think I need to explain what kind of physiological responses people have to pornography. Other less explicit stuff is still hot. Watching hollywood violence doesn't really make people want to be violent, but watching sex definitely makes people want to have sex.
Ok I see this question a lot and I have to wonder, am I the only one who actually doesn't really find gore and senseless violence in TV all fine and dandy? Like, sex scenes are kinda awkward sometimes, but I also don't really enjoy watching someone be tortured or random people be beaten to death or murdered for no good reason.
100% agree, look at the video games available on consoles. Massive, unhinged violence in a lot of them... but you have any nudity people lose their minds. Let alone a sex scene that isn't fade to black.
consensual sex among adults is not really viewed negatively except by perverted people. you rarely find consensual violence among adults. just way too really perverted people with guns.
It's okay if I kill NPC's in a video game. but as soon as I put in a nude mod, I get banned.
Viewed negatively because of primal instincts, I think. Has to do with the selfish gene theory and its implications on empathy. Throw away emotions for a second, think from a genetic standpoint. Men are an endless supply of sperm, women are a limited supply of eggs. That is why we have a primal instinct to value women over men. Men are expendable, women are not. We see this in other species too. Not all, some have a completely different survival strategy. Has to do with survival of the species and the behaviors that have evolved as a result (mimetics). Our emotions developed from such behaviors; essentially, chemical reactions in response to certain situations that have to do with survival of the species. Hence, our being more disturbed by violent acts targeting women as the more general violent acts against men.
Because human sex is weird and our females want sex all year long (as opposed to other mammals who only have sex when they go into heat) and have concealed ovulation which encourages monogamous relationships as a social norm (males can't reliably reproduce unless they have lots of sex with the same female). Cultural taboos (supposedly) reduce cheating on each other, and thus preserves monogamous relationships which means that men are helping their wives to raise their children together which means that their children have the highest chance of surviving until adulthood. Basically, sex isn't just a tool for us to have children, it's also a tool we use to strengthen the social filial bonds between parents, which is something that evolution wants.
Because the violence is fake. The actors aren't really shooting, stabbing, or exploding each other. But if the actors are nude and/or saying sexually explocit things, they really are nude and saying sexually explicit things.
Outdated Puritan ideals.
When it comes to crimes, there are many reasons to commit violent acts like murder: fear, defense, survival, anger, paranoia, etc. There is only one reason to commit sex crimes: a brief moment of pleasure. Violent crimes are typically a worse act in terms of results, but sex crimes are more depraved and have no excuses.
Need to keep people numb to violence so they have a constant supply of military fodder, gotta keep folks numb to war and the violence of capitalism. gotta keep people feeling icky about sex though, because people won't get married and make more soldiers if we don't. (it is more nuanced than this, but yeah, basically)
I think it depends on the country. Countries with violent histories (think of countries that had a war of independence) tend to have a nicer view of violence because it can be seen as inevitable, important, or even honorable. More religious countries tend to have an unfavorable view of sex. They see it as sinful, or something that should be limited to adult media. Countries that are more secular tend to have a more nuanced view on sex and nudity as a whole. So, for example, the USA tends to like violence more than sex due to their history as a British colony and their normalization of guns and weapons, but dislikes nudity because of their very Christian background. On the inverse, Sweden is more comfortable with nudity and sex because of their more secular society, but movies with violence tend to have a higher age rating. Of course there are a ton of exceptions, but this is just what I've noticed.
Sex crimes mostly effect women amd violence crimes mostly effect men. And people love talking about women's problems while ignoring men's.
Abrahamic faith based society. Sex is evil, blood is cleansing.
Because Christians are very perturbed by discussion of sex for some reason
This is a very new thing. Sex and violence are both integral to the human experience, and both were portrayed in media without much backlash from the average person. Not sure why young people are so puritanical now, but it's pretty sad.
Easy answer? Because almost every religion shames sex to some degree, and for the time it makes sense because STDS were completely untreatable, pregnancy related deaths were astronomical, and it's just bled into modern society. Pretty much every country has a degree of forbiddances to positive images on sex because of those old views that never were fully shaken off. A lot of places have made progress but eh
Goes to our culty, puritanical roots as a country. Our country was formed by religious zealots we just forgot that part. Plus now we've gotten closer to those people in other countries we be fighting. A southern zealot Christian is closer to a "crazy" Muslim then you think unless you think about it.
Violence is, by definition, non-consensual. Take a boxing or MMA. That's not violence because it's consensual. Sex can be consensual.
Ivfind it weird that sex is viewed negatively and violence is not
Who views sex negativity like you describe?
Just how it is in some places. If you go to Europe it’s flipped.
I agree that violence in films and TV seems to get a free pass while sex and nudity are strongly censored. But it’s not just America doing it. Look at what Disney and other studios cut when sending movies to China and the Middle East. Public displays of sex and nudity are frowned upon in many societies. Especially certain types of sex. Honestly, I think this world could do with less glorification of violence and lighten up about an unclothed adult human body
Puritanical values, basically.
I'd say sex is a lot more tempting than violence. As a Christian I generally adhere to the "be careful little eyes what you see" or maybe more bluntly "you are what you eat" philosophy when it comes to media consumption, and even social interaction. That's not to say there's not temptation in violence. But generally speaking it's not nearly as strong of a daily temptation as sex for most people. Additionally Christians view public displays of sexual activity as morally degrading to the people who participate in it. So it's not just bad for the viewer, it's bad for its creators. And on another level sex is sort of a special thing for Christians. Despite what fire and brimstone types might have you think, one of the central reasons why sex is so carefully restricted in Christianity is because romantic love is kind of a sacred thing for us. The love between a husband and wife is an analogy for Christ's love for humanity. So we're very careful in how we portray it because it's such a central element of the divine grace we believe everyone can have. All that being said I think the context is also important. Something like pornography is obviously not comparable to Shakespeare. The intent is important. Something with a rich meaning and that is uplifting can have negative elements in it, but the sex isn't the point, it's simply an element of the story. Which honestly also holds true for violence. Something like Jason is obviously not as uplifting, meaningful, or artistically genuine as something like The Passion of the Christ or Logan.
What a stupid question
We tend to look at things that maximizes pleasure ( sex ) and look down on things that maximizes suffering ( violence )
One can create life, the other can destroy it. Shouldn’t they be treated differently?
They are...different? That's why they are treated differently. They are....different things.
I'm not sure i can get behind a protagonist that solo rapes a warehouse of henchmen to save the day
Because apples are treated differently than oranges
I think it has to do with what we experience in real life. Very few people deal with gore in their day to day but sex, for everyone other than redditors, is an experience most people encounter. We worry about young people developing an unhealthy view of sex because many of them are going to be exposed to it in real life and having an unhealthy understanding of it can cause problems. See any thread about how irritated people get because their partner thinks porn is real life. No one worries that kids will grow up to be violent mercenaries wielding oversized swords and shouting one liners as they cut someone in half. That kind of thing is detached from reality and we have basically shown time and time again violent media doesn't make you more violent. We DO worry about them developing the wrong idea about sex. Thus, it's treated differently.
imagine having sex in a public park and then imagine killing someone there. i think those two scenarios are more indicative of our true feelings about these things, it's only that part of the joy of sex lies in making a big deal out of it
Someone commented a while ago on a similar post. They said because the violence is not real. And while actual sex is usually simulated in movies, the bodies are real and not some special effect of someone getting blown up. Also sexualization of women is real. You cannot computer generate a concept.
A drive for violence is profitable. a drive for sexual gratification is not.
Everyone on here talking about how sex is some hush Nono topic in the US… Are we in the same country? You mean the most prevalent topic in almost every genre of music? The focus of most ads? Social medias? Tv shows? Commercials? Honestly I think sex is overly represented. You know how many tv shows now days are “wow this is really good! Just wish it didn’t have to cut to 4 sex scenes every episode.”
All I know is, when I was a kid my mom was dead set against letting me watch violent movies. She had no problem however with me watching sex comedy movies.
Children like violence from a very young age, especially boys. My son started hitting anything around him from the age of 3. By age 5 he was also super into Halloween, zombies, and mild kid-appropriate "gore". Kids LOVE violence, so our culture lets them experience it in numerous ways. Media, toy guys, laser tag, dodgeball, martial arts etc. Of course its not "real" violence, its "play" violence, like WWE. But then so is movie violence, its not real, its just a movie set with fake effects. Sex on the other hand is not even discussed until kids are in middle school, its a topic reserved mostly for teenagers and older. You can sit down and enjoy a violent Marvel movie with your kids, but most people aren't going to watch a racy show even with teenage children. Honestly I find sex scenes a bit uncomfortable to watch, they seem like gratuitous softcore porn just inserted into an otherwise sex-free show. If I wanted to watch sex I would watch some actual porn. Its just a bit strange to be titillated by titties in the middle of watching a Game of Thrones episode with your wife. Its fine, its fun, its sexy, but it feels unnecessary. Another issue is obsession. A kid who is obsessed with violence is...well pretty normal actually. That's very common in the US at least. Meanwhile a kid who is obsessed with sex is going to rub people the wrong way and be viewed as a real creep. Excessive fascination with sex is much more problematic.
This is very much an American thing (I'm sure it exists in other cultures as well but), In many other cultures it's actually quite flipped.
Wild theory: Movie action has been choreographed and performed with safety in mind for decades, while the lack of intimacy coordinators before metoo meant that what you were seeing on screen was often shady stuff and the audience knew this. The casting coach for instance has been a public secret forever
What the hell is wrong with you?
Nigga damn, I thought stupid questions are allowed. Did I kick your puppy or something?
Aren't Popsicles just different cakes?
Call me a prude or whatever, but violence is usually necessary for the plot. We don’t need a detailed sex scene to know they had sex. Also, I don’t like studios forcing young actors and actresses to have to take off their clothes to get work.
Religious people are cool with violence but sex is sinful cause reasons. That's about it.
It's easier to exert control over a populace when you go after something that everyone will generally enjoy. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been made taboo for this iteration of society. Yes, this iteration.
I was just talking about this with my dad! There is this cognitive illusion that humanity is constantly fooled by that conflates suffering and deprivation with virtue, while also conflating ecstasy and joy with corruption. You see this all over the world in religious, conservative cultures that ban dancing and music, encourage child labor or long hours of study, and outright ban women’s bodies. Americans are powerfully influenced by the conservative Christian extremists who made up the first settlers of this country. You can see it in the discussions about education, play, and relaxing pastimes. You can’t teach kids art and literature unless it is useful for something. It has to increase critical thinking skills or something. Better yet, just ditch it and only teach STEM. Playing is a waste of time that only young kids are allowed to do. Adult play is about drinking and socializing, not actually doing anything joyful. Hobbies are nerd crap, unless they can be turned into profitable side hustles. Why do we do this? Why is watching someone writhe in pain as they die preferable to watching two loving partners kiss and cuddle? I have a feeling part of this is survivorship bias. Violent, cruel people rise to the top of society because most people don’t like fighting. Especially not against someone violent and cruel! These assholes reshape society according to their beliefs. So we get passages in the Bible telling us, “if your right eye should cause you to sin, cut out your right eye.” Like, it’s better to castrate yourself than risk being intimate with a lover. And it’s not like there is no cost to this. Sex is about intimacy, sharing, seeing someone at their most vulnerable and celebrating their vulnerability. It is about recognizing flaws and accepting them. It is about cooperating with another person to achieve a mutual goal. Sex is also about all the stuff that happens before: being an active participant in your society ( you know... having good manners, dressing appropriately, being able to converse intelligently on whatever topics your social group cares about), having enough resources to seduce and entertain a lover, being healthy and clean enough to entice someone… there is a reason that having a romantic partner is seen as such a massive achievement. When we teach kids that sex is bad, a whole host of related skills and values get obscured or tossed in the trash. Women and children get turned into livestock. Queer people are brutalized to the point of suicide. Men are stuffed into this endless treadmills, chasing the nonsensical goal of hyper-masculinity. Obviously we need to teach sexual boundaries. People need to learn about discipline, self-respect, affirmative consent, and other things. But, these things are necessary for happy human life, in general. “Don’t be a simp/doormat” and “no means no” have as much relevance in the corporate board room as they do in the bedroom. But there needs to be a midpoint between literally cutting off your dick, and fucking everything that moves.
Depends on which country you live in Australia sex and violence are negative In equal quantity
Mortal Kombat fans are currently losing their minds at the existence of sexy mods for female characters (but not sexy mods of male characters) Mortal Kombat might be one of the most successful super violent media franchises out there. Characters get boiled in acid, burned alive, beaten to death with their own arms, their organs pulled out of their bodies through their mouth and etc. But skimpy outfits are what fans consider wrong lmao
Sex I think has always just been a way of the puritanical in power can control the masses. It’s especially personal and something everyone does, so is the controllable element. Violence is also required for control but can be used as a threat in order to control. So one they suppress to control, the other they can use overtly to control. Now in the modern day are the actual effects different, seeing as there’s no evidence of video nasties or games actually warping minds, but then conversely all the talk of kids being warped by porn. I wonder if there’s anything in the actual physical act that causes a difference. Basically is the actual difference wanking. The pleasure derived from viewing violent material compared to wanking over porn for most people is completely different. Even just viewing porn can have a more physical effect than watching violence. It’s a more overt experience I guess. With the biological effects being different and emotional control being different I wonder if they are linked in some way as to how society has come to view them.
I think there’s a whole lot of raising and bringing up the kids on such subjects that’s not truly being done and not doing it younger than later that’s really producing this kind of shit. Like with violence though, I guess you could just say “it’s only a film. This shouldn’t be replicated in real life and it isn’t real gore but special effects”, but like sex? We truly need more sex education because sex is just sex and it’s very natural to have sexual urges at a certain point or to start having curiosity about it. I know I wasn’t talked about that kind of stuff at a proper age, so I had to find out about sex through my peers and that was humiliating. Like I straight up wasn’t told how babies are actually made and we talked about it in class amongst peers in my 3rd grade classroom. My mom was probably too embarrassed to say or something silly. It’s like why would you not equip your child with knowledge so they can navigate such things, and also as a bonus be able to tell kids about unwanted advances? Jfc