Sex or violence..whats worse?
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
While I will never quite understand my country's (USA) prudishness in some regards, I would consider neither "Pulp Fiction" nor "Superbad" to be appropriate for a 10 year old. (But both are perfectly appropriate for adults.)
RobertScorpio
Pariah
How about Starship Troopers, a very violent gory movie, vs The Blue Lagoon..a coming of age movie with teenaged sex...if came home to find your 10 year old watching one on TV which one would you prefer..
Rob
Blue Lagoon. No question.
Okay. I feel I ought to point out that I am not a parent, am biased due to my appreciation of action movies and am far too irresponsible to be making these kinds of judgements! But in the spirit of discussion:
Obviously it goes without saying that it would be better if the hypothetical kid didn’t have to watch any of these, but given the choice I would much rather show them Starship Troopers than Pulp Fiction. It’s kind of computer game-ish, and if we’re talking about a typical kid who most probably has an xbox 360 or equivalent in their room, they or their friends probably already have shoot-em-ups that aren’t much milder. Also, the whole giant-bugs-in-space thing is so obviously fake and removed from reality that I wouldn’t worry that much about them taking it too seriously. From my limited experience of seeing kids watching other things on tv I suspect they’d laugh at it. Clearly it depends upon the kid’s temperament and how mature they are for their age – I wouldn’t show it to a particularly sensitive one or one who has a phobia of insects, and I also wouldn’t let them watch it on their own in case they got nightmares or something (when I was younger and wanted to watch 15 or above films, I always had to have the film vetted by my older sis or bro). If a kid was too protected from everything they’d only go round their friend’s house and watch it on the sly. If it was a fairly bright, switched on kid who knows the difference between fantasy and reality (and this counts for both types of films), then it would be different, although again not ideal. I think I wasn’t any more than about 13/14 when I saw it and didn’t find it mind-destroying, I only have to spray Raid three times before I enter a room these days…j/k. I hate it when people blame movies for how screwed up their kids are, or use it as an excuse, like those kids who tried to blame murder on watching Child’s Play. Half the kids in my class in juniors had seen that at the same age and we didn’t go around killing toddlers. Anyone who copycats is likely to be a ticking time bomb, already messed up in the first place.
I can’t comment on Blue Lagoon as I haven’t seen it, but given the choice it’d be better if kids found out about what I assume that contains from their sex ed classes at school, or when they have ‘that talk’ or whatever. If they’re completely in the dark they’ll be at a disadvantage to their peers and will find out a distorted playground version, but surely at that age they really ought to be mostly innocent. There’s sex before the watershed in Eastenders these days but that’s different than a full on 18 rated sex scene which would be completely inappropriate for a ten year old.
It's all kind of irrelevant though, because I don't think any of these things are right for a ten year old, and most definitely not for anyone even younger. That's the whole point of age restrictions.
Edit to say Argh! I didn't realise that was such a long-ass post..
Obviously it goes without saying that it would be better if the hypothetical kid didn’t have to watch any of these, but given the choice I would much rather show them Starship Troopers than Pulp Fiction. It’s kind of computer game-ish, and if we’re talking about a typical kid who most probably has an xbox 360 or equivalent in their room, they or their friends probably already have shoot-em-ups that aren’t much milder. Also, the whole giant-bugs-in-space thing is so obviously fake and removed from reality that I wouldn’t worry that much about them taking it too seriously. From my limited experience of seeing kids watching other things on tv I suspect they’d laugh at it. Clearly it depends upon the kid’s temperament and how mature they are for their age – I wouldn’t show it to a particularly sensitive one or one who has a phobia of insects, and I also wouldn’t let them watch it on their own in case they got nightmares or something (when I was younger and wanted to watch 15 or above films, I always had to have the film vetted by my older sis or bro). If a kid was too protected from everything they’d only go round their friend’s house and watch it on the sly. If it was a fairly bright, switched on kid who knows the difference between fantasy and reality (and this counts for both types of films), then it would be different, although again not ideal. I think I wasn’t any more than about 13/14 when I saw it and didn’t find it mind-destroying, I only have to spray Raid three times before I enter a room these days…j/k. I hate it when people blame movies for how screwed up their kids are, or use it as an excuse, like those kids who tried to blame murder on watching Child’s Play. Half the kids in my class in juniors had seen that at the same age and we didn’t go around killing toddlers. Anyone who copycats is likely to be a ticking time bomb, already messed up in the first place.
I can’t comment on Blue Lagoon as I haven’t seen it, but given the choice it’d be better if kids found out about what I assume that contains from their sex ed classes at school, or when they have ‘that talk’ or whatever. If they’re completely in the dark they’ll be at a disadvantage to their peers and will find out a distorted playground version, but surely at that age they really ought to be mostly innocent. There’s sex before the watershed in Eastenders these days but that’s different than a full on 18 rated sex scene which would be completely inappropriate for a ten year old.
It's all kind of irrelevant though, because I don't think any of these things are right for a ten year old, and most definitely not for anyone even younger. That's the whole point of age restrictions.
Edit to say Argh! I didn't realise that was such a long-ass post..
Sex is worse than violence because sex/romance/relationships as done by Star Trek is horrible - either boring or cliche ridden or both - while the violence is often very ass-kicking and fun. Star Trek should play to its strengths and sex sure ain't one of them. 
Outside of Star Trek, I might have a different answer. But you're also throwing me off because Pulp Fiction is a much better movie than Super Bad.
Outside of Star Trek, I might have a different answer. But you're also throwing me off because Pulp Fiction is a much better movie than Super Bad.
Neither, I'd ground the kid for not watching a good movie.
Seriously though, I think ten is a bit young for either of these. Star Trek up until Enterprise seemed to be one of those shows that could show love and violence at a more all age appropriate level. That would be fine till the kid is at least thirteen. At 13, depending on maturity, I'd start letting in more violence and sex but still probably not anything like the movies that have been mentioned so far.
I'd be kind of worried if the kid was watching Blue Lagoon. That'd mean he's such a TV zombie that he'll watch anything, no matter how boring.
To be totally honest: I would rather let my kids watch any pre-80s adult programme, no matter how violent or erotic, than any of 80s-00s children programmes.
I'd rather see my children grow up with Twelve angry men, The Avengers, Kojak, The Birds, The Night Stalker, Alien, Barbarella, Jaws, The Dirty Dozen, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Death Wish or Psycho, than with Teletubbies, Barney the Dinosaur, Pokémon, Kim Possible, W.I.T.C.H., Harry Potter, some duck-obsessed Disney drivel or some crazy rappin' gangsta niggaz.
I'd rather see my children grow up with Twelve angry men, The Avengers, Kojak, The Birds, The Night Stalker, Alien, Barbarella, Jaws, The Dirty Dozen, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Death Wish or Psycho, than with Teletubbies, Barney the Dinosaur, Pokémon, Kim Possible, W.I.T.C.H., Harry Potter, some duck-obsessed Disney drivel or some crazy rappin' gangsta niggaz.
I don't think he is at all. I think he makes excellent, well-argued points. If you want to talk about different types of sexual content in media, that's fine , but the OP's definition wasn't specific.
And it will affect them when they hit puberty and have no knowledge base to fall back on when they're confronted by all of those uncomfortable questions and experiences. I'm supposing, of course, that a parent won't be teaching it to them if they don't want them seeing it in media.
I'll be a little disingenuous and add that a child should know how to write a check before they ever move into their own apartment too.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Pretty much how I thought this poll should have come out...and I gave gained much more respect for my fellow TREK fan...And I agree with the majority here..I'd rather come home and find my 10 year old son 'accidently' coming across the Blue Lagoon or Porky's rather than Starship Troopers or Pulp Fiction..
Rob
scorpio
Here's an example of PG in sci-fi/fantasy.
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/Chronicles-Narnia-Prince-Caspian_2.html
Sexual Content
Some mild flirting; a single tender kiss at the end.
Violence
Lots of swordfights and battles, some of which get pretty brutal.
Expand that for PG 13.
The question is, is "Star Trek" a famly show?
Chuckling
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/Chronicles-Narnia-Prince-Caspian_2.html
Sexual Content
Some mild flirting; a single tender kiss at the end.
Violence
Lots of swordfights and battles, some of which get pretty brutal.
Expand that for PG 13.
The question is, is "Star Trek" a famly show?
Chuckling
Maybe problem is that violence is fun to watch, while sex is fun to do. :-) that's why there is less sex than violence in TV and movies. Watching someone else making sex is simply boring, unless you're a voyeur.
I think it should be done on a case by case basis. Children need to be exposed to both violence and sex so they can form a moral understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I think a parent should choose what is apropriate for a child based on how well the child understands things, how prone the child is to blind immitation, and the child's decision making skills. Showing a child something horrible that they will understand is something not to immitate gives them a greater understanding of the dangers of the world. It all depends on the child and their age, really, but I know some 10 year olds who could totally handle Pulp Fiction if not get its deeper meaning, and I know some 14 year olds who can't. Superbad, well, I don't think you could get a 10 year old to watch Superbad. They'd be bored to death. When a kid actually has any desire to watch things involving sex than I think they are ready for positive role models of consentual sex between people who love one another.
The problem for TV writers is considering the kids whose parents aren't monitoring what they're watching or don't care.
The director of "Scarface" did the same thing; if you watch the (in)famous "chainsaw" scene, you never actually see anything, just blood. Yet to my mom, that scene was very intense and violent, because her imagination filled in the rest.
As for the topic's question (violence or sex?), I'd have to go with sex being worse. Call me "puritanical" (hehe), but I think our kids are getting more promiscuous at a younger age enough as it is.
Personally, I think the biggest issue is parenting; parents should regulate what their children are exposed to as they grow older, and not just sit back and let things go as they will. Responsible parenting is the real key!
