Hacker News Reader

Comment by omginternets | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

>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.

> 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.

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

> 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com