censorship

Swiss Bezerker said:
I hear its the opposite in France: Most violence is baaned from TV, but knideragdener's are led to museams with naked sculptures.

I don't see how nudity necessarily equates with sex.
 
Museums are somehow exempt from the pornography backlash because the sculptures are deemed as art or culture or some other bs. The reason sex is restricted is because society has grown around the notion that the act is bad and must continue to be stricken from children's eyes.
If you are taught that something is wrong then you would tell your children the same thing and it goes onward.
 
ComradeDavo said:
Personally I think everything is worse than sex;) Apart from Music :rockon:

Anyway, the real answer is that alot of Christians, Muslims and other religions are paranoid up about sex and like to surpress peoples natural instincts to get horny with each other.

I find it rather silly when a 15 year old can watch people killign each other but not someone making love.

Make love not war!

VRWCAgent said:
Frankly, I'm shocked that a game like that is even allowed to be sold at all.

I'm a bit offended. This game is so great!even better if they don't include the sex scene. Remember, if the game cover says M and you let your kids play it without your attendance and guide, it's your fault.
 
Oh and BTW: Sex should be more allowed than violence.
Sex: an encouraged part of our culture, you wouldnt be here without it.
Violence: chances are the chainsaw mazzacre wont actually happen.
 
There are certan things that censorships is appropreate in the media. Namely the control of profanity and nudity.
 
CivGeneral said:
There are certan things that censorships is appropreate in the media. Namely the control of profanity and nudity.

So violence doesn't matter?

I have always thought that the sex paranoia of America is rather ludicrous. I'm not saying that youth should be exposed to pornography, but whats the matter with seeing some nudity? By the time kids are teenagers they should know that hanky panky is a part of life, and that to conspicuously try to hide it via censorship and tabooness is to make it more appealing and cool to these kids, which leads to a pregnant teenager now and then.

It would also be way out of line to say the government should censor anything. Let the smut be procured, and let the parents be responsible for once.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
So violence doesn't matter?

I see violence as more of a grey region which ranges from simple cartoon violence (anvil falling on character's head, falling off a cliff a-la Road Runner, etc) to blood and gore. Cartoons that were made in the 1950s-1970s would have controvertial content contain in them and would not be alowed in today's Cartoons.

The thing to determine about violence is to find where the right line to allow or disallow. Quite ovious that there should be censorship on blood and gore violence.
 
Censorship of sex explicit content seems to have connection with gun control--How could conservative defend right of bearing guns while spit on the right of watching obscure sexual scene??
 
I can understand banning extreme violence in movies, because thats something, what just a few people will experience in real life and I can´t see a reason, why someone should experience this. But sex? Nearly everybody will have sex sooner or later, so why don´t show it to them? Of course, a hardcore porn is not made for a 14 years old, but a small sex-scene in a normal movie is nothing bad.
 
I never understood the hypocritical stance on nudity vs. violence

first off: nudity doesn't necessarily equate sex. so why do so many people freak out if there's a flash of female breast in some commercial or movie without warning about it beforehand?
to me, both nudity and sex are natural things, and I just can't see why they are/should be censored. especially since violence seems much more tolerated.
lucky for me, it's not that bad, where I live. Nudity on TV is a pretty much common/normal occurence and nobody (or at least very few) seems to have a problem with that.
 
I feel that nudity should be censored. To me, I feel that human private parts should be covered and obscured by pixel vision since its realy not appropreate to be flashing one's private parts.

I personaly would want to have nudity censored to protect the children's eyes. I personaly dont want to expose my future children to any nudity.
 
well, they'll get to see plenty of nudity evertime they take a bath/shower :p

I just fail to see how nudity shold be in any way bad for children. :???
 
KaeptnOvi said:
I just fail to see how nudity shold be in any way bad for children. :???
I feel that they are not ready to be exposed to such nudity. They would eather be uncomfortable about it or become sexualy active at a younger age.
 
CivGeneral said:
I feel that they are not ready to be exposed to such nudity. They would eather be uncomfortable about it or become sexualy active at a younger age.
I fail to see how. If they are uncomfortable about it, it's because their parents tell them that nudity is somehow a bad thing. As for the sexually active: once more: nudity != sex. Furthermore, I fail to see any causality between being exposed to nudity and earlier sexual activity...
 
Look, it simply boils down to cultural differences, which I thought we were all supposed to respect, right? The US has a thing about public nudity and Europe doesn't, that's all there is to it.
 
Another question. Why do adults try to hide sex? I mean it is not a big secret what adults do at night. I found out in grade 1. BTW most guys my age use internet porn. That is way ruder than anything you have ever seen on TV (even cable).
 
AL_DA_GREAT said:
Another question. Why do adults try to hide sex? I mean it is not a big secret what adults do at night. I found out in grade 1.
Well people generally don't want to know the intimate details of each others sex lifes.
 
Back
Top Bottom