Saying this in the "Third Graders Plot to Attack Teacher" debate I thought of another good one:
Violence versus Nudity.
Which is the greater/lesser of the evils?

I believe the Puritan influence in the United States combined with the Victorian Era have utterly thrown our view out of sorts.

Another way I see it is that eventually, nudity will be part of everyday life. You want to have grandkids? Your children will have to see a naked person to do that.
Want your kids to smell nice? They'll be naked to take a bath/shower!


But I digress.
Some examples of why America has it skewed.
On IMDb's forum for Resident Evil: "Title: how much sexuality/nudity? /Post Body: my little sister expressed interest in watching all three movies and on the imdb page it says rated R for sexuality/nudity. she's only 12 and i don't really want her exposed to anything dirty."

I can't remember where I saw it, but another person pointed out that many movies rated "R" in the US receive ratings in the fifteen-sixteen age range in other countries and it's true.
Still using Resident Evil as a guide, here are the compared ratings for different countries:
Canada:13+ (Quebec) / Iceland:16 / Malaysia:18SG / Brazil:16 / Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) / Mexico:C / Canada:18A (Alberta/British Columbia) / Canada:R (Manitoba/Ontario) / Argentina:13 / Australia:MA / Chile:14 / Denmark:15 / Finland:K-15 (re-rating) / Finland:K-18 (original rating) / France:-12 / Germany:16 / Hong Kong:IIB / Ireland:15 / Japan: PG-12 / Netherlands:16 / New Zealand:R16 / Norway:18 / Peru:18 / Philippines: PG-13 / Singapore:NC-16 / South Korea:18 / Spain:18 / Sweden:15 / Switzerland:16 (canton of Geneva) / Switzerland:16 (canton of Vaud) / Switzerland:16 (canton of the Grisons) / UK:15 / USA:R

And the question remains: Which is worse to expose to kids?

ETA: Excepting out-and-out porn that is. No child should be allowed to watch acts being performed on someone else until they are mentally mature enough to handle the visuals.

I think violence is worse to expose to kids. Also, you didn't clarify the type of nudity. Is this just a fe/male body in a movie or is sex involved? If sex isn't involved then I don't see anything wrong with seeing a frontal shot of Brad Pitt in a movie versus seeing someone's head being blown off.

Definitely violence. Always. Nudity isn't an evil at all and I don't think it should be nearly the issue that Hollywood makes it out to be. The only reason we have a nudity taboo is because people in cooler climates grew so accustomed to wearing clothes for warmth that it became weird to see someone without them, then at some point 'weird' turned into 'unacceptable' and the movies only perpetuate an unnecessary taboo. But then you look at the equatorial and tropical civilizations in ancient times as well as today, and nudity is still not even an issue there- in fact it would be insane to wear heavy clothing in such areas!
However, sexuality is a different matter. I think up until a certain age children shouldn't be subject to graphic sexuality. By all means, please have 'the talk' with them- but it doesn't mean you show them a porn film or let them be little voyeurs (ew...)

Violence can obviously lead to so many terrible consequences, though, if children are overexposed to it. IMO we as humans should be disturbed by violence at every age, we should never be complacent about it, even if it's necessary.

Violence, by far.

Nudity is only as big of a problem as people make it. There are plenty of cultures where it is not regarded as a taboo, and the children don't have any adverse psychological problems as a result.

There is nothing wrong with the human body.

That being said, I don't think that violence in the media causes violence in real life. Only if you are disturbed to begin with, will seeing someone get shot in a Miami Vice rerun help inspire you to kill.

Violence is nothing new among human beings, and I don't think horror and action movies have anything to add to the equation.

I would worry more about young children seeing violence then I would about them seeing a stray boob. Of course both should be monitored in what they watch and what game they play, but how many kids have you heard about that run right out to be prostitutes after seeing partial nudity or a light sex scene versus the kids that act more violent after seeing and playing violent video games and movies?

I'm gunna say Violence is worse.
Nudity...if you really think of it...what happens in most peoples life?
They "reproduce".
Do you need violence?
No.

In the states we have to take a Sex Ed, Drivers Ed, and Drug Ed Class.

Violence is worse than nudity. One thing about the rating of shows and movies is that none of it applies to the news, watch the news pretty much anytime now and what do you see violence, clips of the military firing their guns, etc. Now complaining about violence in movies and shows is pretty silly when you don't care really what's shown on the news. Shows and movies have fake violence, the news shows real true to life violence, now which of those is worse?

You have a valid point. But what I think violence comes down to isn't how graphic it is, but the sort of light it is being showed in.

Which is worse, a film or television show glamorizing gang violence, or a news program showing the devastating effects of gang violence? Even the television show might not be as graphic as the news show, it could be far more harmful due to the message it is sending out.

I would say it depends on the type of violence, really. There is ultra-realistic violence, like you would see in a police drama, and then there is the cheesy fake violence in a slasher film, or cartoon. I have less of a problem with violence the cheesier and unrealistic it is. Most of us probably watched all kinds of violent cartoons as kids, whether it was GI Joe, Transformers, Tom and Jerry, or Bugs Bunny. But, we knew that it was fake, it was pretend. That kind of violence is so unrealistic, even kids understand the difference. However, a film like No Country for Old Men would be a problem for me to let someone young watch. The violence depicted is realistic enough where it definitely could be seen as real. I see a big difference between that kind of violence, and say, Friday the 13th.

There is also a line that must be drawn when it comes to nudity. Yes, we all see nudity everytime we take a shower, however, that doesn't mean it is appropriate for a 12 year old to watch a disturbing rape or sex scene in a movie. Maybe the kid can handle some boobs being flashed, or a naked butt or something, but that doesn't mean they are emotionally capable of handling it all. Further, being exposed to the wrong kind of nudity at a young age (see kids getting into their dad's hardcore porn collection or something) can give them quite wrong ideas about sex, and that will carry on throughout their entire lives. With violence, we all see it, but, we don't all go out and chop people's heads off. I think its easier to disassociate violence with real life than it is with nudity/sex. I would much rather have my kid playing a violent video game where they kill a thousand Spartan warriors, than have them send and receive nude photos between them and their friends on their camera phone.

Okay, I'll admit a little faux-pas on the first one. I suppose I meant cooler and/or drier climates. But there's a reason I said equatorial and tropical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the Middle East is a desert climate, and it is not close to the equator. One would have to wear full-body clothing, yes, to protect oneself from the sun and from the sand and dirt that gets kicked up. And Middle East inhabitants don't have to worry about humidity making their clothes stick to them and trap their body heat. In central/southern Africa, South America and the south Pacific, though, where it is hot and humid, many people still go mostly bare, or if they get a lot of tourist traffic, just enough to pass as decent- any more and it starts to get uncomfortable. For them, nudity is practical, so it's silly for them to have big taboos about it.

I don't know about all of that. I think violence should leave a realistic impression. It should be disturbing and hard to watch, because in real life it is. It seems that it really creates problems when people are desensitized to it, of have unrealistic expectations about it.

I have been doing quite a bit of EMS training of late. I, of course, am one of these people who is fascinated by blood, guts, and gore. I also have seen some rather gory scenes first hand before I got into EMS.

Its amazing, as we do our trauma training and field training especially, how shocked people are by realy blood, guts, and gore. They expect to see CSI and horror movie special effects injuries, and are instead shocked to realize that things are far more drastic in real life.

I think if more people had a better idea of the brutality of violence or accidents, they would be more careful and less likely to engage in, or get themselves involved in crime or dangerous activities.



I disagree with you on this. Pornography can leave lasting effects on people who use it as their only resource for sexuality. But it is the parents job to educate their children about sex. Not just the basic mechanics, but the actual phsyical and emotional issues involved therein. It isn't the fault of the media that people devolope unhealthy sexual habits, it is mostly the fault of their environment as a whole.






Why? Sexuality is normal. Curiosity about sexuality among adolescents is also very normal. If you sheild them from it, they will find it from other sources. Humans are very sexual beings, it is a natural and primal drive.

If you teach them responsibility, as well as the difference between pornography and real life, I don't see how it could be harmful.

The fact that sexuality is normal ADULT behavior is exactly why I stated that its easier to dissassociate violence...I think perhaps you misunderstood me.

What I was getting at, is that even kids are smart enough to understand that some kinds of violence, like, a Star Wars character using a lightsaber to cut someone in half, a GI Joe cartoon character shooting blue and red lasers that never seem to hit anything at each other, a Tom and Jerry cartoon where the cat gets hit on the head with an anvil, (or Itchy and Scratchy, if you prefer) are so unrealistic that kids know its fake. They aren't likely to be affected deeply by it, because they know its just fantasy, its pretend. They know this because its patently obvious that its fake. However, some violence is too realistic and gritty for 12 year olds to see. I might let a 12 year old watch Freddy vs. Jason, with its campy violence, (supervised, of course) but at the same time, I would have serious issues letting them watch The Departed, because while it is a GREAT movie, the violence depicted is a little too realistic. Even though FvJ would have a much higher body count, and more visible blood on screen, because its so campy, to the point of being downright cheesy, an impressionable tweener isn't going to take it as seriously as they might a movie where the violence is more realistic. Shoot, I am 33, and while I can watch the goriest films Hollywood can create, I can't watch a surgery being performed on Discovery Health, I get queasy. The blood and guts in the movies is fake, the blood and guts I see on Discovery Health is real. My brain understands the difference between them, and from your response, most other people can clearly separate movie/TV Crime show gore, which we know is fictional, from real gore.



With sexuality or nudity, they see naked boobs, they associate that with real people, because they see women with boobs every day, they see guys who they know have wangs, IE, its realistic. Lets face it, some porn contains scenes that are downright harmful to impressionable people. How is a 12 year old going to know that the bondage and simulated rape scenes are fake? I am not talking about stupid porn, like Girls Gone Wild, or other videos/DVDs that exist just to titillate, but rather the more hardcore stuff.

So, if its the parent's job to educate their children about sex, am I correct in assuming that you are against school sex ed programs, as well as the distribution of condoms? I do agree with you that parents need to teach their children responsibility...but doesn't that then imply that if children need to be taught responsibility about sex, that its something that needs to be treated with more care? I would argue that letting kids see porn, where they see women being treated as sexual objects, and nothing more, IS harmful. How can you not see the harm in letting your child watch something that tells them that its fine that they have multiple sexual partners at the same time? That sex is a weapon to be wielded, that members of the opposite sex are just toys, to be used and discarded?

I just think something like that is far more harmful then letting them watch a movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger mows down 50 people without reloading his gun...

I rather have nudity than violence in the world. You aren't really hurting someone if you are naked, except there eyes... LOL Violence, in my opinion is way worse. people DIE from violence, I don't think anyone has ever died from nudity.

-Claire :D

Davious - I guess I should have specified, but I didn't mean watching kids watch out-and-out porn. I meant unclothed human beings, not actual acts being performed on anyone.

cwoods: *laugh* I agree with that last sentence full-heartedly.

This is a great point. The intent and message behind the violence (and nudity) is important to consider as well.

For example, I wouldn't have a problem with my children seeing nudity. When they get a little older and into puberty, I wouldn't have a problem with them seeing sex acts either. The trouble for me is that MOST nudity and MOST sex acts are depicted in a way that objectifies and demeans women.


And coincidentally, I just saw this article on 1up:

For the people saying that video games/movies cause violence in children/teens, there's a new book out--just came out today--called Grand Theft Childhood . It's about the effects of video game/movie violence on teens. Think there's a positive correlation? As time spent playing these games goes up, violent urges go up? Wrong! As time spent playing goes up, violent urges go down! Take a look at the comments on that page. They're rather interesting. here's another, fuller review of the book. I plan to pick it up sometime, since I agree with the authors. Video games, and recently movies, have been an easy scapegoat and target for a while, and I think it's just an excuse for poor parenting. ESRB ratings aren't an end all/be all for anything. They're a guide there for the parents.

My stance on this debate? If/when I have children, I plan to take a look at what they're watching--be it nudity or violence. I don't want to restrict my children to the point that I was (hell, I couldn't even watch Twister!), but I want to have an active role in their parenting. I want to know what kind of material they're watching. More importantly, I want them to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. I want them to know that what you play in video games isn't real, that you can't go out and kill someone and not face any repercussions. I want them to know that, yes, people do have sex, and when the time comes, I hope I'm the type of "cool mom" who can have a candid talk with their child and make sure they protect themselves sexually. I want to have an open relationship where they know they can talk to me, and together we can distinguish between what TV tells you will happen, and what's actually going to happen with both violence and sex.

well, I admit, I was focusing more on allowing kids to watch porn, because in most situations where nudity would be seen on television or a movie would be during a sex scene. In my first post, I made it a point to differentiate types of nudity. There is clearly a difference between someone being shown nude breast feeding, changing their clothing, or flashing the camera, that kind of thing, and blatant sexual nudity. If we are just talking about an 11 year old boy finding his dad's Playboy collection or something like that, I would be among the "who gives a crap, its not a big deal" crowd. I do think there is a tremendous danger in allowing our children complete access to adult material though, and I think that is where most of my objection comes from. I see a reason why some of it is for adults only, and why adults only really means adults only. It doesn't even have to involve nudity, either. I would censor my young child from watching anything with an adult theme. Jodie Foster isn't nude in Taxi Driver, but, I would probably object to an 11 year old wanting to watch it, because of the theme of her being an underage prostitute. Nell, meanwhile, where Jodie is naked pretty much the entire film, I would say is probably okay for a 15 year old to watch, because its not really sexual in nature. My problem is really that most nudity in film is directly involved in sex scenes, and its the sex scenes that I would object to showing my kid. Its not really the nudity in and of itself, as it is more the situations in which the nudity is shown most of the time. Go to France, take kid to a nude beach? I guess that would kind of be okay. Take them to a sex show in Amsterdam's red light district? HELL NO. Same breasts, same buttcheeks, possibly same frontal view... but completely different situations.

So would I.

Eh, Violence is way more bad than nudity besides nudity only shows body parts as long as there no woohoo scenes that show the body parts interacting then fine but I don't mind kids seeing some nudity all depends on the gender I think like if A little girl watched a movie that had female nudity then thats fine I think a boy would be more disgusted not a teen guy though but a little boy. And vise versa. Violence is just too extreme and horrifying to the little kiddies eyes and brain. Nudity however they will learn more of that in the 7th grade XD.

I agree that violence is much worse, especially if the violence children witness is made to appear glamorous, such as in the GTA games. Of course it's about moderation, kids can watch star wars and harry potter, all of which contain mild violence to some degree, as long as they understand that the characters in these movies are fighting for defence, not for personal gain, only the "bad guys" do that. Not that I am condoning children watching any film where only the bad guys use violence for gain, again graphic violence should not be shown to children, as it can frighten them quite severely and have a long standing negative impact.

However, I don't think really young children should watch Tom & Jerry, or Road runner and Wile Coyote, as they don't understand that just because that violence is funny, that they shouldn't do that in real life (although I am generalising, some children, I'm sure would understand), just as they shouldn't play shooting games, as they can have trouble separating fantasy and reality, and it makes me shudder to have a child associate killing others (or even animals, such as in those hunting games), fictional or otherwise with fun.

Nudity on the other hand, is a normal part of life for humans really... the human body shouldn't be something that we are ashamed of... we all have one after all.

Besides, in Australia (where I'm from) most children have seen pictures of the male and female anatomy by at the latest age 11, when they learn about reproductive systems, and many learn about this at age 7, as many schools have optional sessions for parents at children at this age about "how boys and girls are different", so it unlikely that seeing nudity in film and TV (not porn of course) will have a detrimental effect on children, as they have seen it before, and it's not as if the human body is something to be ashamed of.

Lise27, please see my above post and seriously take a look at those links. Violence in movies/video games doesn't have the effect on children that people want to believe it does. I'm talking long term effects. Sure after seeing a Jackie Chan movie, kids will rough house a bit, but it's not going to make them violent people overall

I also think parents need to be in this equation. They need to be watching their children, not just turning on the tv and walking away. No matter how young they are, most children can distinguish between over the top, outlandish cartoon violence and real violence. They may experiment at first, but they'll pick on the difference real fast.

DarkestBlu, I agree with you!

I'm not saying that children should be sheltered from all violence, and I definately agree with you about parents taking an active role, and that children can distinguish when things are "over the top". After all, that's how I was brought up.

I was referring generally to heavy violence. I have nothing wrong with kids seeing a Jackie Chan movie, or anything like that, they're good movies, I saw them as a kid and that is absolutely fine. I'm just saying that they shouldn't play games where the object is to shoot people in order to rise through the criminal underworld, but that is just my taste.

My saying saying that Tom & Jerry were a bad influence was probably a little over the top, but i have seen situations where children have tried to drop a heavy object on another child because they didn't realise the full consequences (after seeing it on a cartoon) there was of course, no long term damage to either child, and neither are violent, but it has resulted in some trips to the emergency room for some stitches.

It isn't a strictly adult behavior. Human beings in general are sexual. There has been documentation of fetuses sexually stimulating themselves in the womb. Sexualaty is just part of who we are.




I personally don't believe in censorship. I also don't believe sheltering children. I learned at a young age just how cruel and dangerous the world is.





None of it bothers me. I have long sense stopped being grossed out by corpses or terrible injuries. So, I do have a difficult time of gauging what it disturbing to other people.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor violence. I understand all to well the repercussions of such actions. That is what should be stressed, I think. In the end, we're all red and gooey inside.






Yes, because women have breasts and vaginas and men have penises. Its just nature.




I would rather someone watch bondage porn than girls gon wild. Girls gone wild is awful. It teaches young women that its cool to act like a slut on camera for free alcohol.

I don't see anything wrong with bondage. Simulated rape is disturbing to me, but so long as it is in fact simulated, I don't see the problem.



You are COMPLETLY WRONG by assuming that. In fact, I support stringent sexual education in school, as well as free condoms and birth control for everyone.

The more people are educated on sexuality, the fewer diseases will be spread and the fewer unwanted pregnancies will occurr. I don't trust peoples parents, because most people who reproduce seem to be complete idiots.

The school system should act as a safety net, in case parents don't educate their children the way they should, the schools should.

You can never be too educated.




Care? Why? Why sugar coat things? Adolescents aren't stupid.




It isn't so much letting them watch porn. They will watch it anyway, whether you let them or not. Especially boys. So, since they will watch it anyway, you should teach them that it is what it is. Entertainment, not reality. Its importent to teach them to make that difference.

I've viewed pornography for years, since around the time i entered puberty. Many of my peers have done the same, and to my knowledge, none of them think its real. Its porn, it serves as visual stimuli, and thats that.

As for having multiple partners. As long as they are safe and responsible about it, I don't think its anyones business. Of course, most people in our society tend not to do that.



Again, the only way I can see this happening is if this was a persons ONLY resource for learning about sexuality. But, it doesn't seem dangerous if you are a normal human being with normal rational thinking skills.




Sexual gratification vs. gratification through violence. Sexual gratification seems more healthy to me. Of course, things get very messy when people start confusing sexuality and violence.

Lise, that articles about the book I quoted pretty much say this:

Violent video games (of ANY sort) do -not- cause people to be violent.

They were on a video game talk show last night, and the authors said that, when researchers do studies to the opposite effect, their tests go like this: See how long -college- students administer a shock to/blast a loud air horn at a person they believe is in another room. Have students play violent video game for 20 minutes. Repeat test, seeing how much longer they'll push that button. The results are something like they'll hold the button for three seconds longer. Not much of a change, and the studies do not come back to those students years later to see if it's had any drastic long term effects on their lives.

Blu,
I'll have to check that book out next time I'm at the store. The articles describing it leave a lot to be desired about the major points of the book and the evidence used to support it. The immediate questions that popped into my mind was if these games are more harmful for younger children who are going through phase-sensitive stages of imprinting. I'd like to read more about what they learned about the effects of violent video games per age group and economic status.