Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hypothertical: Whats worse, TV sex or TV violence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypothertical: Whats worse, TV sex or TV violence?

    Most popular show shave an incredible amount of violence CSI, Criminal minds, Hannibal Cold case etc, and the one I think is morally horrendus as an entertainment vehicle Law and Order: Special victims unit. However while the media and society think its totally acceptable to put this violence on in prime time, apparently sex scenes are unacceptable

    If you raise children, or even if you dont, what is your opinion on what's worse for society and why do you feel that way.


    Why do you think it became acceptable to show one so graphically but not the other?
    15
    Sex is worse
    26.67%
    4
    Violence is worse
    73.33%
    11
    My mum always used to say, when life hands you lemons "kill mob within spell duration with a soul gem of adequate quality for the mob's level to trap its soul"

  • #2
    Violence on TV is conditioning people to make this act acceptable in the current environment. Look at the level of attacks in the community lately, Guy set on fire in cannington, another attacked with a machette while waiting for a bus, people killed in parks, this cock in my area running 15m off the road to run a lady down in a car because he thought it would be fun to re-enact GTA.

    how can this be good for society.
    Atlas Performance, dyna pumps, " your name goes here"

    Comment


    • #3
      Honestly I don't think either are a huge problem. What I do find a problem is tv that normalises problematic social behaviour.

      SVU? Not such a problem. SVU episode where (for instance) rape victim is disbelieved and the majority of characters (or any "good" characters) take that in stride? That is something I find genuinely harmful.
      Originally posted by Dragunov-21
      If you want me to answer a question, I want you to ask one that doesn't put words in my mouth that were never there.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Arwon View Post
        Violence on TV is conditioning people to make this act acceptable in the current environment. Look at the level of attacks in the community lately, Guy set on fire in cannington, another attacked with a machette while waiting for a bus, people killed in parks, this cock in my area running 15m off the road to run a lady down in a car because he thought it would be fun to re-enact GTA.

        how can this be good for society.
        o.0

        - - - Updated - - -

        I think they're both inappropriate but I often wonder why there is such a contradiction. I hope everyone alive gets to fuck at least once - but I sure as shit hope noone gets to kill someone... yet killing is 'normal' on TV and sex is taboo... I guess I didn't really contribute to this discussion, more so just reiterated your discussion point...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Arwon View Post
          Violence on TV is conditioning people to make this act acceptable in the current environment.
          proven by the fact that people would even think to compare sex to it.

          Comment


          • #6
            So you guys don't feel that context is the primary factor?
            Originally posted by Dragunov-21
            If you want me to answer a question, I want you to ask one that doesn't put words in my mouth that were never there.

            Comment


            • #7
              of course context is a factor. but when so much tv and film is dominated by violence, context eventually goes out the window and violence just becomes something we accept. we become desensitised to it and don't question its need (even in 'context') or the way it's glorified.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Dragunov-21 View Post
                So you guys don't feel that context is the primary factor?
                It would seem ( could be wrong ) that you are referring to the context the chracters are in, but what about the context that at 8:30pm millions of people sit down and watch a show about Kiddy porn as entertainment. Or A show with a new serial killer that skins/tortures/rapes/eviscerates people is "awesome".

                Does the context of the story matter if the issue is that in reality these concepts are considered acceptable. Someone pulling a gun on TV is as common as someone driving a car.

                I know as adults we probably see a far amount of shows that show boobs, or some sex, but actual prime time shows contain very little, especially if they are on standard TV in the US.
                My mum always used to say, when life hands you lemons "kill mob within spell duration with a soul gem of adequate quality for the mob's level to trap its soul"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, replace someone pulling a gun with a dildo and be prepared for a raft of angry, nancy grace, white picket rage.

                  Just remember that parts of the u.s view guns completely differently to the way the average Australian would.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I guess what I'm saying is that I would find something that normalised or glorified unacceptable material (I'm looking at you, Underbelly) to be vastly more damaging than something that used unacceptable material as a way of alienating viewers from a character.

                    Admittedly, shows like SVU, by virtue of their extended running and extensive viewership, probably have a lot to do with moral panics surrounding sex offenders and that's damaging too, but I can at least take comfort in the fact that the context is generally that "rapists are bad" rather than "This guy had sex with a wasted girl and now he's going to pay for the rest of his life for this simple mistake and the viewer should feel some level of empathy for him because it's not like he's a proper rapist or anything he just made a mistake".

                    Shows like Underbelly portray violent crime as an adventure with characters that are dangerously accessible to the average bogan.

                    Do you get what I'm trying (pretty clumsily) to say?

                    Honestly I think that the fact that sex is treated like violence when it comes to ratings is less due to violence being normalised and more to do with sex having been demonised for a bajillion years.
                    Originally posted by Dragunov-21
                    If you want me to answer a question, I want you to ask one that doesn't put words in my mouth that were never there.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Maxo View Post
                      Yeah, replace someone pulling a gun with a dildo and be prepared for a raft of angry, nancy grace, white picket rage.

                      Just remember that parts of the u.s view guns completely differently to the way the average Australian would.
                      the gun debate is irrelevant here - how someone views guns is not necessarily the same as how they view violence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bukefal View Post
                        how someone views guns is not necessarily the same as how they view violence.


                        No, but it's relevant. Part of the gun debate revolves around the concept that normal everyday people shooting people is expected/normal/acceptable under certain circumstances.

                        That is relevant to the normalisation of violence in a society.
                        Originally posted by Dragunov-21
                        If you want me to answer a question, I want you to ask one that doesn't put words in my mouth that were never there.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dragunov-21 View Post
                          No, but it's relevant. Part of the gun debate revolves around the concept that normal everyday people shooting people is expected/normal/acceptable under certain circumstances.

                          That is relevant to the normalisation of violence in a society.
                          if gun ownership is relevant, so is knife ownership. gun ownership is intended to be about self-defense, not about every citizen walking around like a cop.

                          the normalisation of violence in a society is about attitudes, not laws. outlawing guns in the US won't do anything to improve its problems with violence.

                          guns don't kill people, etc.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bukefal View Post
                            if gun ownership is relevant, so is knife ownership. gun ownership is intended to be about self-defense, not about every citizen walking around like a cop.

                            the normalisation of violence in a society is about attitudes, not laws. outlawing guns in the US won't do anything to improve its problems with violence.

                            guns don't kill people, etc.
                            Guns don't kill people.

                            People kill people.

                            However, guns facilitate that and make it very, very easy for people to kill people.

                            I had a go with an M16, an AK47 and a machine gun a couple of weeks ago in Cambodia. I declined the options of $50 for a grenade and $350 for a rocket launcher.

                            Having experienced the power and violence of the three guns, I am extremely glad that we don't have these in Australian society.

                            I still have some fascination with guns, but they have their place - locked up and never to be used by anyone.

                            It's easy to sit back and carry on about gun control stuff, but I would have gladly shaken John Howard's hand that day (ie post-1996 gun limitations).

                            It's unfortunate, but it's often the wrong people that access these weapons.

                            We are seeing numerous spontaneous acts of violence out in public these days. At least the people behind these attacks don't have easy access to such weapons.
                            One owner. Only driven gently on Sundays. Sold to best offer. First to see will buy. Reward offered for safe return. Coming soon to a cinema near you. Available for a limited time only.

                            My waterbed broke this morning. Oh, I don't have a waterbed. Bugger.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It has nothing to do with gun ownership or gun laws. It has much to do with the societal attitudes underpinning those laws and the extensive ownership of firearms among US citizens. A large part of firearm ownership is related to defensive carry and that is linked with the idea that shooting another person is something that is relevant to members of the public.

                              You are talking to a pro-gunner. I'm not trying to make it about gun control, but I think that to ignore US societal attitudes toward shooting people (a kind of violence, justified or not) when considering the effect of primarily-US-produced television programmes on societal attitudes toward violence is completely invalid.

                              Phildo, pleeease, this has the potential to be a really interesting thread. If it derails into a gun control debate it will be shit. T_T
                              Originally posted by Dragunov-21
                              If you want me to answer a question, I want you to ask one that doesn't put words in my mouth that were never there.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X