10/29/2005

Sex Vs Violence


So, I am ready to bitch. I have a cold, feel like crap and you fair people get to read my bitchiness. I have a real problem with our country and the need to smother anything about the human body or sex. Oh granted, Coors can have their TWINS commercial, even while the owner of Coors tries to run for the Senate under the guise of someone who is really conservative. But what I see more and more in this country is a movement to suppress sexuality while at the same time reveling in violence.
Case and point number one. I read a diary on another blog about how they went to go see The History of Violence. The couple behind them, for some unknown reason, brought a couple of kids, probably around the age of 10 or 11 to see it. Now first off, this is an R. No children. That should have been the first clue. Ya know, they say 17 and older for a reason. But the title alone should have kept these people from bringing their children. Even from the short previews you can tell it is an extremely violent movie. Even without it, I would think twice, as a mother of a preteen, of taking my kid to see it. Okay, no I wouldn't because I would never be a jackass like these people were apparently. But you want to know what these people complained about, and the reason I am going to the movie or renting it the first day it comes out? There is an explicit 69 scene in it with Viggo and Maria Bello who plays his spouse. Not the fact it deals with grown up issues of violence and that Viggo's family is terrorized by Ed Harris. No, the sex. Because, since that is natural that is bad. Hell, I am all up with they showed a hot scene between a wife and husband who have been married for awhile. Right on. That and well, come on, it'sViggo. Show me a woman who doesn't want to see that and I say you found a corpse.
But, I must move onto my next bit of news I saw today on a blog. A small town in ND thinks the male revue, The Thunder from Down Under, should not play in their town. Jamestown's religious leaders have decided that men taking off clothes is bad for the town. Fine. It is their town, they can do what they want. The problem I have with it is just a few weeks ago they had an ultimate Fighting show, where the men in that probably are dressed almost as skimpily, but you can take your 5 year old. And once again, it is okay to be violent, it is not okay to be sexy(in a show that would have been for 18 and older).
This goes to the heart of what is wrong with the American view of sex and violence. Sex, a natural function, is frowned upon. It is used to sell everything under the sun, but we are taught to suppress the feelings. By getting upset with a sex scene, that a 10 year old shouldn't see either, but not with the violence it sends a message to the children. Violence is acceptable. Sex is not.
I do not feel children should be exposed to sex. There is a rating on the movies for a reason and my 10 year old doesn't get to see some PG 13 cause guess what? SHE ISN'T 13! She sees many of them but there have been a few we have said no to.
The human body, I have no problem with. I am still confused about the Janet Jackson boob outing. I mean, it was just a nipple. But, what do I expect when the Attorney General of the US at the time was so afraid of boobs, he had something draped over a statue.
Blame it on my European upbringing. Granted, my folks grew up in Pittsburgh, but I spent a huge part of my youth in Germany and there was nudity on TV. No biggie. It is JUST a human body. There is nothing dirty about it. Plus, my parents dragged us from one freaking museum to another, so we saw plenty of nudes. My sister and I have not become degenerates and other than a mutual love of sarcastic comments, I doubt my parents are overly upset with the way either of us turned out.
But, according to some people in the US there is something wrong with nudity and the human body. Unless you strap it in spandex and beat the hell out of your opponet, that my friends, is what we call family entertainment.


UPDATE: And then I saw this story about a father attacking a referree at a game. But, I am sure they can't mention the word condom because that would influence the kids.

6 comments:

Jaynie R said...

I so totally agree with this - it's the same in Australia - ratings are given by sex, not violence.

I just turned the tv off on my 4 year old this morning who was watching the Disney channel - some violent cartoon was on. Sheesh, should I have to police the Disney channel? It's riduculous.

Melissa said...

This past Spring and Summer the RWA was all up in arms and I think a lot of it started with an agent, pretty well known and one of the biggies, saying that we should have ratings on our books for the sexual content.
WHY? Explain to me why we have to do that and NO ONE ELSE DOES. Stephen King doesn't have bloodied knives for ratings, but for sex we should because we might offend someone with the word cock.

Joy said...

I so agree with you. I have always said that children should not be allowed in movies over pg. Yet I see parents takin their young kids to R rated movies on a continual basis. It pisses me off to no end to see this. This is part of the reason why the kids are so freaking fresh (curse words), know about sex (not love) at a young age when they should not even have such knowledge in thei lil minds. There is love and then there is sex, kids are too little to understand the difference when they watch movies that have a lot of sexual activity and violence in it at such a tender age.

Anonymous said...

Kudos on every single point you made...glenda

Melissa said...

I agree. I always check with the movie mom on Yahoo.com in the movies section. She goes into detail what is in each movie, even noting the diversity in it. And tells you exactly why it is PG or PG 13.
When DH and I first started dating, Misery came out and some woman was in the theatre with a three year old! I am still appalled.

Melissa said...

Thanks, Glenda!