Hacker News Reader

Comment by omginternets | Hacker News Reader

>beheadings are at least as controversial as nudity

From one internet stranger to another, and with all due respect: bullshit.

We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice.

To claim differently is to either a) appeal to an exception that does not represent the overall social norm b) be disingenuous (which I don't think is your case, to be clear) or c) not even be aware of the problem, as advanced by the parent comment.

To say the American populace (again, on the aggregate level) is both desensitized to violence and hyper-sensitive to nudity is a massive understatement, one which can be directly traced to our puritanical roots.

Seriously, this is like saying America doesn't have a problem with gun violence. It's so patently and obviously false that it borders on comical.

(I again feel compelled to mention that I mean absolutely no disrespect. I just couldn't disagree with you more.)

View on HN

Or, you know, d) I thought we were talking about actual beheadings (e.g., ISIS promo videos) and not theatrics.

The theatrical dimension doesn't change much. That's how strange the US is in this respect. The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent, contrary to the amount of censorship applied to sex, real or otherwise.

Do Americans censor "real" violence more than theatrical violence? Possibly. Do they censor "real" violence less than any form of nudity? Yes.

You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. At the very least, the uproar will be an order of magnitude larger for the boobs as compared to the violence.

And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special.

>And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special.

Really? Have you been to the Middle East, or is your definition of "the world" a handful of western European countries?

Fair enough. I was referring to the first world, and specifically the Western world.

The point remains. The US is a very special case in this respect.

I would further argue that even with the middle east involved, such an ascetic rejection of nudity is hardly the norm across the world. But that's still addressing a tangential (and, I think, pedantic) point.

Just because many other cultures have a prudishness about nudity doesn't make our particular prudishness about nudity a universal value, and ours isn't similar at all to the Middle East's. Our censorship arrangement is uniquely our own.

> The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent

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

Some random thoughts on the US movie situation:

For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.

It seems like movies have a monopoly on socially acceptable portrayals of nudity. Nobody raises an eyebrow if you go to a mainstream movie with a nude scene. And actresses can show breasts in movies, but would cause a scandal if a nipple showed happened in real life.

Once I started thinking about how much violence is shown in movies, I realized that it really is a crazy level. Just count the murders in a typical action movie and compare to real life. (Interestingly, rapes are portrayed very very rarely in movies.) I'm not suggesting censorship of violent movies, but doesn't it seem like maybe there's a bit too much?

> but very possibly could decide to have sex.

Oh the horror. Perhaps if sane sex ed was wide spread[1], that would be a non issue. Like in EU.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requi...

Sex in movies is usually not "sane sex ed", and that's GP's argument for not showing it.

I would guess that he/she means that if there was sane sex ed in school, then seeing people having sex on tv wouldn't make kids have unprotected sex any more than seeing violence on tv would make them go around killing people.

> but very possibly could decide to have sex.

This is the idiotic prudishness that people are talking about.

Teenagers aren't going to have sex because a movie has boobs in it. They are going to have sex because they want to have sex. It's basic biology. Educate them and encourage them to make good/mature choices.

Calling someone an idiot and a prude for having different values than you isn't going to help.

The difference between the U.S. and many parts of Europe is that in the U.S. you are actually allowed to have different values than whatever mainstream secular society declares. So if you want to cover your head, or raise your child in a sex-negative environment you have the right to do that.

Those things don't reflect my values. I walk around without anything on my head all the time, and if I had a child I would teach them about sex. But I'm glad I live in a country where I have a choice about it. I'll happily defend my "prudish" and "idiotic" neighbors because I have respect, even reverence for what I believe is a sacred responsibility that parents take for their children.

I'll discuss good parenting until I'm blue in the face, but I won't force my values on anyone, beyond protecting children from violence.

> For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence

Perhaps because I'm Spanish, but that doesn't make any sense for me.

I prefer that my son sees a tit in TV than a shooting or murder.

>I prefer that my son sees a tit in TV than a shooting or murder.

Seriously. Sex is normal. Killing is not.

I love the US, I really do, but the level of prudishness is just... insane.

Sex is natural, essential to the continuation of the species. You cannot say the same for killing humans. Butchering cattle, well, maybe that's necessary, but slaying a man or a woman definitely is not. People are advocating to ban death sentences, yes?

Clearly I was not talking about butchering cattle.

> For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.

AFAIK, there is at least as strong of a research-demonstrated link between violent behavior in young people and violent media consumption as there is for the same thing with sexual behavior and media.

So, I am skeptical about your claim here, even before we consider the severity of the harms of children deciding to engage in violence and then deciding to engage in sexual activity.

> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen.

Braveheart is rated R.

We did get to see scenes from an R rated movie in grade 10, but it was the opening to saving private ryan while we were studying WW2. I'd argue that violence like that in context is more acceptable. 15 year olds are also much better prepared.

The thing that's really ridiculous is the swearing. The Walking Dead has gratuitous violence, but they can't say fuck because that would hurt advertising revenue. It's ridiculous.

> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen.

Braveheart has nudity and violence, and we don't allow 8-10 year olds to see it.

Yet we make no distinction between theatrical nudity and actual nudity.

...what is the distinction? Both are "actual" nudity. Nudity is nudity.

A theatrical work that showed a woman wearing one of those "naked lady" t-shirts wouldn't be treated the same as a theatrical work that showed a naked woman.

Except in America, where the t-shirt would definitely be censored.

And violent depictions are violent. I wouldn't recommend Kill Bill to a child because the gore isn't real.

Violence is bad because of people getting hurt, not because they're getting red liquids all over. Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt. Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.

    > Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.

Yes - and they are the same as the fictional stuff in your first part. Meaning nobody gets hurt, it's just "there". Nothing breaks or is torn to pieces or shredded or crushed.

    >  Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt.

Same with fictional violence and nudity - and for the latter it does not matter, as you pointed out. Nobody is going to be hurt in either case.

Theatrical nudity is when someone gets naked in character for the purpose of creating an image. Pornography, modeling, etc.

Actual nudity is when someone gets naked as themselves, for some other purpose than creating media. Sunbathing. Having sex. Trying to get napalm off oneself.

If you're talking about ISIS, I don't see any distinction being made between showing ISIS beheadings or just people who support ISIS talking; both are equally censored. ISIS mass beheadings and burning of people alive are shown on prime time news programs up until the instant of the first cut, and until moment the flame is actually lit, and people speaking in support of ISIS are shown without subtitles, and interpreted by newsreader copy. Talking about ISIS beheadings isnt't the same as talking about beheadings, the fact that it is propaganda being distributed by a force declared as the enemy complicates the matter.

Also, prosthetic nudity and artistic depictions of nudity are censored too, so I'm not sure of the effectiveness of the distinction you're trying to make. If what you're trying to say is that we don't censor special effects violence just as we don't censor special effects nudity, it's simply not true.

No middle school kid is going to get into an R rated movie if they are dropped off and not escorted by and adult at all times.

That's some serious security control you imagine there...

Eh? I wasn't let into R rated movies unaccompanied in high school. Most of the time when we snuck in after buying a ticket to another movie we were caught. They'll come around asking for your tickets during the film if they suspect you are underage or didn't pay or whatever.

Where did you grow up, Soviet Russia? I wasn't even one of those "mall rat" kids, and most of the time I went to the movies with friends we switched to a different screen.

Well the suburban malls didn't care for "urban" kids taking the bus to the mall even if they weren't causing trouble. They eventually just flat out banned anyone under 18 from entering the mall without a parent, seriously, the mall cop stands at the entrance and IDs young looking people at the entrance. That was after I turned 18 they started that policy though. When I was about 24 I got IDed at the entrance to the mall and I was so disgusted by it I never wanted to go back (not that I ever want to go to the mall in the first place)

Haha I don't think I've ever been an age at which going to a mall was worth getting IDed. Movie theaters in indoor malls suck anyway, like most things about indoor malls. (In USA, anyway, I once went to a mall movie theater in Philippines and it was awesome.)

Even so I'd say the mall you're describing was particularly authoritarian. Most malls in USA couldn't afford a guard at every entrance.

Once one mall started every single mall in the area followed the policy. It is not uncommon- I just did some random googling for examples

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/09/teens-must-be-with-parent...

http://www.wdrb.com/story/30856303/6-things-you-should-know-...

http://www.panamacity-mall.com/security/

http://www.mallatstonecrest.com/pip

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-ford-city-youth-es...

It's not that expensive, I imagine you are only paying the mall cop around minium wage.

We didn't have any movie theaters that weren't at the mall.

> No middle school kid is going to get into an R rated movie if they are dropped off and not escorted by and adult.

IME, insofar as that is enforced at multiplexes, its enforced mostly at ticket sales and at multiplex entrances, not entrances to individual screening rooms with the complex; tickets are usually not verified at entrances to individual screening rooms except for special circumstances, e.g., opening weekend for major blockbusters -- which only occasionally even overlap with R-rated films.

So, its not at all impossible for a middle school kid to get into an R-rated movie without escort by theater hopping.

I was replying to "We as a society... drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice."

The average parent isn't going to fill their mini van with a bunch of 12 year olds and drop them off with the instructions to sneek into a film that they won't be otherwise allowed into. That hypothetical parent would be shamed on the evening news if caught. That's all I'm saying, not that it was impossible to sneek into an R rated film.

The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.

>The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.

In it's precise form, maybe, but it's certainly not a fiction insofar as we very much tolerate children being exposed to violence. It might not be at the literal movie theater, but that's completely and utterly beside the point.

The average parent has no qualms about showing violence to children. That is not a complete and total fiction. With respect, you're quibbling over trivia.

Unless its changed drastically since I was a kid (which I admit was a very long time ago) the average parent does not expose their children to violence or violent imagery especially not in middle school. Where the hell do you live where that's the case?

> Unless its changed drastically since I was a kid (which I admit was a very long time ago)

The level of violence in PG-13 rated films has increased drastically since the rating was introduced, so, its quite likely that this has changed drastically since you were a kid if it was "a very long time ago".

Gaaah we're tripping up the anti-flame filters, so I apologize for the slow response.

I think I understand what you're objecting to, so let me try to tackle this from a different angle.

Consider how pissed your average neighbor would be if I showed Inception to one of their kids. Now imagine how pissed they would be if I showed them Eyes Wide Shut. Do you see it now?

Right or wrong, for better or worse, Americans are more enraged by things of sexual nature than violent nature. Ounce for ounce, violence is less shocking than sex and nudity. This is why the principle distinguishing factor between PG-13 and R ratings is sex and nudity, not violence!

Yes, obviously conscientious parents try to shield small children from violence, but here's the thing: I moved to France from Delaware and parents here don't give a flying fuck in a handbasket if their children see nudity. Actual sexual intercourse or lewdness is another issue, but newspaper kiosks show topless women in plain view and nobody cares. Statues have penises and nobody cares.

I don't think things have drastically changed since your childhood. Rather, I think this is a very difficult thing to see if you've grown up in the midst of it without spending significant time abroad (though maybe you have and we simply disagree?)

I probably saw die hard and other movies like that in middle school.

I remember seeing saving private ryan around that time too.

The only movie that ever really bothered me for violence was the passion of the christ.

> I was replying to "We as a society... drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice."

But the R-rated comment was fairly irrelevant to that (or, rather, counterproductive, since it says more about sex than violence.) PG-13 movies aren't less violent than R-rated movies. [0]

> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.

Except that is completely true; heck, arguably "without even thinking once" is more accurate, since imagining that the lack of an R-rating means that a movie isn't violent isn't so much thinking as finding an excuse to avoid thought.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...

What's your point?

The fact that adult supervision is required doesn't contradict the claim that American parents are willing to expose their children to violence and not nudity.

This literally has nothing to do with anything.

Moreover, I was certainly shown R-rated movies in class at a young age. Sure, all the parents had to sign a permission slip, but the fact that they did it just goes to show I'm not making this up. The phrasing might have been hyperbolic, but the point remains valid: we're by and large okay with kids seeing Terminator but not a nipple.

> What's your point?

The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen.

Hell, if you have a younger looking 12 year old and let them walk to school by themselves expect a busy body to call the cops on you.

And it's completely and utterly beside the point.

We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.

Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much everyone agrees with age restrictions in theaters, nobody is protesting in the streets to remove them.

Where the hell do you live?

>we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves.

Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity.

Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence!

This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.

> Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves.

You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.

Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, is rated R for sexual content. I have seen the movie twice, but the only "sexual content" I can remember is a short humorous flash of a couple having sex. For comparison, the movie is rated between 7 and 15 years in the rest of the world. There is no violence in the movie. It's basically a very sweet and innocent movie, rated R in the US.

> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen.

Yes, it does, and the fact that you think that we don't let them see R-rated movies (which contain more sex but not more violence than PG-13 [0]) means that we don't let them see violence illustrates, rather than contradicts, that point.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...

That study is designed to find what they wanted to find. There's a big difference between the "gun violence" you find in PG-13 movies and what you find in R movies. The A-Team is not Saving Private Ryan.

You spoiled your point with the hyperbole in the last sentence. The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. It certainly isn't normal behaviour to call law enforcement about this; a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.

hy·per·bo·le: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

My example is not in any way exaggerated and it is meant to be taken literary.

>The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy.

People have been convicted of crimes for leaving their 8 year olds "unsupervised" because of busy bodies with cell phones. Not charged, convicted! The reason its rare to hear about a case is because its a socially unacceptable for children to be left alone now. [1] Its a rare thing to do so its a rare thing to get in trouble for doing.

>a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.

Absolutely! I sure did when I was a kid! I couldn't imagine being so suffocated by my parents that I wasn't allowed to be away from them to walk to the corner store by myself or ride my bike to the park. My dad sent me to the hardware store on my bike to buy propane, nobody batted an eye. Now if an unaccompanied 10 year old showed up trying to buy propane the parents would be arrested. This is madness, I agree, but the "protect the kids" mantra is terrible, but it is also the reality.

[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-expla...

>We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice.

How many people do you know that actually do this? The parents I know that were okay with their kids seeing violent moves were equally okay with their kids seeing nudity.

>How many people do you know that actually do this?

Too many to count. FFS, you're responding to an article about Facebook censoring nipples! ;)

More seriously, I envy you. Where do you live? I might move there.

A beheading in a movie isn't a real beheading. I would venture a guess that most people would be upset if an ISIS beheading video was shown to their children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com