Or, you know, d) I thought we were talking about actual beheadings (e.g., ISIS promo videos) and not theatrics.
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.
Really? Have you been to the Middle East, or is your definition of "the world" a handful of western European countries?
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.
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?
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Seriously. Sex is normal. Killing is not.
I love the US, I really do, but the level of prudishness is just... insane.
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.
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.
Braveheart has nudity and violence, and we don't allow 8-10 year olds to see it.
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.
> Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.
> Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt.
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.