NationStates Jolt Archive

well since i was shown both about that age,.......

I support a gradual build-up of introducing either into a young person's mind, because i suspect that gearing me up into watching the entire Nightmare on Elm street series, and many other violent movies, when i was in that age bracket, may be a cause for my sprinkle of paranoia i have

as for the nudity parts, that would explain why i have the very animal instinct to hit on most hot girls i see - though for safety i get to kow them first in case they have a boyfriend who is psycho jealous

I don't have any kids, but I would probably look at it this way...

Assume, for the sake of argument, a worst case scenario in which my child decides to emulate what he/she sees in the movie. Judge movie contents accordingly.

Kind of a no-brainer.

Which would be worse: for your child to be nude, or for your child to beat a stranger to death with a hammer?

Which would you be more concerned about: your child having sex, or your child gunning down 15 people during a daring daylight bank robbery?

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex? I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex? I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.

If I have to pick one I would say I would rather they watch nudity/sex over violence.

Only a couple of things have I ever barred my pre-pubescent teens from watching and in both cases it was violent sex. That is the big no-no in my house. Sex by itself is fine, violence by itself is fine....just together is off limits. I won't even watch it for that matter.

Both... preferably at the same time.

I don't have children, so I don't think I'll answer a hypothetical question that way: my current opinion could change radically by the time I do.

it depends entirely on context. i didnt expose my son to gratuituous sex or violence in the movies/tv but didnt deny him seeing movies/tv that had a reasonable usage of either.

I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.It might not. It could well be that violent movies are given more leeway over nudity than the "will of the people" reflects.

Probably sex.
Love>hate *nods*

Ooh! Another chance to reference the George Carlin routine about substituting the word "f**k" for the word "k**l"!

In a western: "Awright, Sheriff, we're gonna f**k ya now. But we're gonna f**k ya sloooow."

In a horror movie: "A mad f**ker is on the loose! He must be stopped before he f**ks again!"

Good stuff, Maynard ;)

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex? I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.

the only 10-13 yo I know (my sister) doesn't like violence and doesn't like sex either. But I guess that sex would be better as long as it isn't really to graphic and if it's depicted a little bit positively.

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex?

dear God I would have to have had a child at 5...

also I was exposed to both however at 12 onwards I could enact sex by myself without hurting anyone (beyond that poor chicken I keep chocking :()

the only 10-13 yo I know (my sister) doesn't like violence and doesn't like sex either. But I guess that sex would be better as long as it isn't really to graphic and if it's depicted a little bit positively.

I bet she hates the internet :p

To bolded part, what?

He meant "choking." I'm sure you can Google an interpretation of the euphanism, "choking the chicken." It means he's an onanist.

He meant "choking." I'm sure you can Google an interpretation of the euphanism, "choking the chicken." It means he's an onanist.

don't be silly I clearly meant I keep using a chicken to stop doors :p

dear God I would have to have had a child at 5...

also I was exposed to both however at 12 onwards I could enact sex by myself without hurting anyone (beyond that poor chicken I keep chocking :()



I bet she hates the internet :p

To bolded part, what?

I bet she hates the internet :p

actually she doesn't, she loves it and she's quite good at it (for her age).

It all depends on context.

Take, for example, Spider-man. There is an indisputable presence of violence in those movies. But even a small child would still understand that Spider-man only goes after the bad guys (excepting #3, which I would restrict for the sheer fact that it sucked as a movie), and thus less likely to emulate those actions.

Then, of course, there is the romantic comedy that features sex. Depending on what exactly is shown, that too determines whether I'd let a ten year old watch it.

Of course, there is also the movie like 300. It features lots of gory violence, and heavy sex. I'd probably hold off on that one until I'm sure about the youngster in question.

Though personally, I like to watch the gory violence. I've even thought about painting the walls and ceiling of a room in red splatters, and getting it with a nice deep burgundy carpet. And a head on a spike for decor. Cause heads on spikes always a touch of comfort, comfort in the knowledge that one's enemy has had his head separated from his shoulders.

I prefer to think my children have a strong enough character and sense of right/wrong that I can expect them NOT to mindlessly emulate what they see on TV.

Actually... I don't have to just think it. I raise them that way.

I don't really distinguish between them as long as no matter what happens neither sex nor violence is the point of the film. People should not be introduced just to be killed or slept with and otherwise ignored.

For that reason, I intend to prohibit pornography, zombie films (and similarly-veined monster attack films) and a lot of wartime or combat-oriented movies/shows until my kids are at least in secondary school, though I'll hopefully remember to tell them about what these films are about and explain that I don't think the objectifying of people is a good habit to get into.

I prefer to think my children have a strong enough character and sense of right/wrong that I can expect them NOT to mindlessly emulate what they see on TV.

Actually... I don't have to just think it. I raise them that way.Now which of the two would you prefer they emulate? :p

I don't have any kids, but I would probably look at it this way...

Assume, for the sake of argument, a worst case scenario in which my child decides to emulate what he/she sees in the movie. Judge movie contents accordingly.

Kind of a no-brainer.

Which would be worse: for your child to be nude, or for your child to beat a stranger to death with a hammer?

Which would you be more concerned about: your child having sex, or your child gunning down 15 people during a daring daylight bank robbery?

What would be worse;

Your child has sex and gets AIDS or your child defends himself and beats up a bully?

How about you just kill 2 birds with one stone and have more movies with both sex and violence

But no movies about violent sex - snuff movies are thankfully banned

Got a question concerning the poll.

is the third option really that I would rather my child see more of you?

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex? I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.

hmmm... Graphic violence... like ducks being blown up (Looney Tunes)? people fighting to the death with explosions going on around them (Power Rangers)? soldiers firing weapons at each other (G.I. Joe)?

or sex/nudity?

it depends on my child really. if it seems they have a hard time differenciating between fantasy and reality, then I would censor what they watch... meaning no violence and sex.

but if they seem mature (for their age) then I will trust them... but you can bet that each movie would have a discussion about the movie afterwards.

What would be worse;

Your child has sex and gets AIDS or your child defends himself and beats up a bully?
What would be worse:

Your child has sex with his wife or your child hits his wife?

See? Isolated examples go either way.

I don't have any kids, but I would probably look at it this way...

Assume, for the sake of argument, a worst case scenario in which my child decides to emulate what he/she sees in the movie. Judge movie contents accordingly.

Kind of a no-brainer.

Which would be worse: for your child to be nude, or for your child to beat a stranger to death with a hammer?

Which would you be more concerned about: your child having sex, or your child gunning down 15 people during a daring daylight bank robbery?

If we are going with "worst case scenario"

Your child getting pregnant and doesn't know who the father is or getting several girls pregnant at 16

or your child getting a reputation for starting fights and killing a person or several persons at 16.

What would be worse:

Your child has sex with his wife or your child hits his wife?

See? Isolated examples go either way.

I think that's what Soviestan was trying to show Bottle. after all, Bottle's worse case scenarios were pretty weighed against one but light on the other.

I'd make it clear to them that violence is (almost always) wrong, and that sex should be performed responsibly long beforehand. Then,...I dunno. I think I'd let them see violence first.

You know, my first reaction was sex... but after considering for a minute, I'm not so sure.

I'd make it clear to them that violence is (almost always) wrong, and that sex should be performed responsibly long beforehand. Then,...I dunno. I think I'd let them see violence first.

Possibly something like this. I mean, it depends on how either is presented in the movie; a reasonable use of either isn't a big deal.

If I had kids I wouldn't feel comfortable about them watching violent children programs on TV or playing with toys designed for boys like action figures with weapons and toy weapons. I'm sure they wouldn't copy it for real but "Violence is fun." and "Real men kill people." is not the kind of values I'd like to teach my kids.

Nothing wrong with love, as long as they wait until after puberty with actually trying it, in somewhat steady relationships and with protection of course. What I wouldn't want the kids to learn is that reproduction is dirty. It's only dirty because we say so, it is the idea that it is dirty that is dirty.

While I'm at it I'd not want them to learn that some insults are forbidden. The only reason bad language is bad is because it's forbidden. If people viewed bad language as immature but harmless insults on the level of "you are a silly head" then bad language wouldn't be a problem. I'd rather teach them that insults in general will just cause people to stop taking you seriously.

I'm glad I don't have any kids.

PS. Personally I like violent movies and computer games and watch/play them a lot but I don't like the fact that I think violence is fun.

In this day and age, any parent who has managed to stop their child from seeing these things before the age of 13 deserves a pat on the back.

I don't have any kids, but I would probably look at it this way...

Assume, for the sake of argument, a worst case scenario in which my child decides to emulate what he/she sees in the movie. Judge movie contents accordingly.

Kind of a no-brainer.

Which would be worse: for your child to be nude, or for your child to beat a stranger to death with a hammer?

Which would you be more concerned about: your child having sex, or your child gunning down 15 people during a daring daylight bank robbery?

Am I a Nietzschian for the purposes of this example?

Sorry.

I wouldn't particularly like either, not because I have anything against sex or violence in movies, but because it is necessary to frame them in their respective contexts and that's difficult to do with a small child. The most moral movie I've ever seen with respect to violence was Unforgiven, but I wouldn't show my child that because I doubt he or she would understand the nuances of the film. Same with . . . hmm, come to think of it, I'm having a hard time thinking of a movie that treats sexuality with the same level of thought and intelligence I've seen movies treat violence with.

I guess that would be my answer and rationale then: a violent movie. Not because of the consequences, but because there's a much greater likelihood that the movie actually depicts violence as something that you shouldn't be proud to admit you're good at participating in, but may sometimes be necessary. On the other side, it's very difficult to find a movie that treats sex with the kind of respect it deserves (maybe something like Monster's Ball, but that's in the same category as Unforgiven. . .).

Note: I don't think of sex as something you shouldn't be proud to admit you're good at particpating in, only that it should be taken as something more than a formal requirement of what happens when square-jawed action hero saves damsel-in-distress.

both

In this day and age, any parent who has managed to stop their child from seeing these things before the age of 13 deserves a pat on the back.

We should support parents who lock their children in the basement and feed them through a little door? :confused:

I wouldn't really have a problem with either. I've been watching ultraviolent shit since age 6 and I turned out fine.

Though for the sake of argument, I'd choose sex. I think it's disgraceful that sex and violence are grouped together in "things that your children shouldn't see". There's something seriously fucked up about a society that puts a depiction of 2 people having sex on the same level as a depiction of someone getting their throat slit open. Shit like hardcore porn sort of pushes it for kids too young to understand sex, but out of the millions of R rated movies I've seen, not one sex scene have I found to be too bad.

In this day and age, any parent who has managed to stop their child from seeing these things before the age of 13 deserves a pat on the back.

I'm going to quote Eminem:

And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what a woman's clitoris is
Of course they gonna know what intercourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex? I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.

Meh, I don't care as long as its handled realistically...
















Not that ever happens in Hollywood movies

But no movies about violent sex

But violent sex can be fun ;)

It might not. It could well be that violent movies are given more leeway over nudity than the "will of the people" reflects.

Nonsense. Everyone knows that Americans love to shoot things and make people feel shame for the bodies! All Americans. Especially the ones posting on NSG. :rolleyes:

I'm gonna go oppress a small sovereign nation now.

I can't help but think of Jane's Addiction's C'mon, Ted, Just Admit It (http://www.songfacts.com/lyrics.php?findsong=4593) (partial lyrics):

Camera got them images
Camera got them all
Nothing's shocking...
Showed me everybody
Naked and disfigured
Nothing's shocking...
And then he came
Now sister's
Not a virgin anymore
Her sex is violent...

The T.V.'s got them images
T.V.'s got them all
It's not shocking!
Every half an hour
Someone's captured and
The cop moves them along...
It's just like the show before
The news is
Just another show
With sex and violence...

Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent...
Sex is violent!
...

I would go for a little bit of both, if you´re into that kind of stuff. Some gritty sex´s always good.

I'd let them watch movies with sex, because sex is a natural thing (so is violence, but sex usually aint' harmful)

would you rather your 10-13 year old child see a movie or show with a lot of graphic violence or a lot of nudity/sex? I imagine this will go largely along N.America/Europe line, I want to see if I'm right.

Given that at age 11 and 9, my mom took me and my bro to a movie that was rated R, that had some simulated sex in it... I think I'd rather my kids viewed that (and we talked about it) than KILLMAIMDESTROY Part XXIV.

Sex.

10 and 13 are VERY different ages. It's the difference between "childhood" and "adolesence". I don't have many qualms about a 13 year old seeing movies with sex or violence, as long as they are hugely graphic or emotionally disturbing. Ten year olds, on the other hand, probably shouldn't be watching movies with either, but I suppose sex isn't as bad as violence.

repression of sex creates popularity of violence.

every denial that it does is clear evidence of brainwashing.

as for what one is allowed to see at what age, it is not what someone sees once they are warped by, but what one sees nothing else then, that one has no other reference then.

also i see a poll with three choices and a title. what? precisely, is supposed to be the question the poll is supposed to represent our answers to?

=^^=
.../\...

I'd rather them see the sex.

Sex. After all, it's how we got here in the first place.

Sex, sex, sex, and more sex.

The sex is better.

:rolleyes:

Sorry for the bad pun.:D

But violence is always wrong.:sniper:

Sex is often sooooo right.:D