It is simple. Nudity and sex appear usually (except in porn, and this is not what we are talking about, I think) in short, occasional scenes in average movie. Violence is often spread throughout the movie. Movies with violence usually glorify it, and glorify the one who commits it. Policemen are tough and brutal the same way as criminals are. Vigilantes are praised as first class heroes. You won't see a simple family-man policeman who works his job using mostly brains. No, every policeman-hero is either single or divorced, and this hard divorce made him disappointed and heartless so he can be even more cruel than before. Just seldom he is a widower, and his wife was killed, so working as a policeman he tries to revenge her death being ruthless to every person he meets.
You see what I mean? These violent movies have violent heroes, and their violent actions are justified and/or glorified. As for sex, (almost) no character is a hero because he had sexual activity, it is just something that he does, like driving a car (what can be even more fascinating, because in mainstream movie cars are always shown more than bodies).
I'll grant what you're saying, and keep the interpretation of "porn" pretty broad. There are certainly plenty of movies that center around sex but aren't usually categorized as "porn" (stories featuring characters that are porn stars or prostitutes for example, see Boogie Nights or Pretty Woman).
My thing is that violence, even when "glorified" in entertainment, is nevertheless usually portrayed as a dangerous, risky activity. Sex, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly portrayed in a positive light, as a harmless bit of fun (aside from the occasional rape scene in a movie, which is more over in the violence category).
Hence, if we're talking about impressionable viewers, it would seem, if they were inclined to imitate what they see on screen, they would be more likely to choose to imitate the sexual content than the violence, since the former is seen as more positive and less dangerous more often than not. Sometimes sex is played for laughs, but rarely is it portrayed as something negative (again, unless it's a rape). Violence may be portrayed as positive (justified because the heroes are awesome and the villains or worthy of punishment or whatever it might be), but nevertheless risky.
Sex is seen as "normal" by society, but physical violence, outside of the battle field or sanctioned sporting events, is frowned upon. Even when violence is seen performed by authority figures like police officers, it is generally a cause for concern and even condemnation by the American public (and that's the one I'm talking about primarily here, as that's the culture I'm a part of).
This is a matter of identification. We are talking about an age group that is in the process of identification and finding heroes are among most important parts of the process. And, watching the movies, as I explained, it is by far more probable that they will chose somebody that performs violence than sex.
I disagree. Sex in movies and tv (again, mainstream as opposed to "porn") is generally for the benefit of the viewer. It is usually shown as two (or more) attractive people engaging what is portrayed as fun and pleasurable. Occasionally it's a cause for drama between characters we're meant to identify with. Sometimes an average or unattractive character gets to have sex with an attractive character as a "reward." Other times "unattractive" people are shown in a sexual situation for its comedy potential. That's usually how it goes down.
So since sex is more socially acceptable, and because it's more often than not portrayed as positive and not dangerous, it would seem logical that impressionable viewers looking to experiment in imitating what they see on screen would choose sex rather than violence.
It may be an unfair double standard that while sex is more socially acceptable in society than violence, when portrayed ON SCREEN, sex is less socially acceptable in mainstream entertainment than violence. I guess the general public feels that sex in entertainment belongs in porn, but violence doesn't need it's own separate category for people to view in the privacy of their rooms.
Physical violence by young persons certainly has consequences much like sex, but at the same time, I think the sex is far more attractive an option. So perhaps the perception is that the sex is more dangerous (to those viewers) hence the reluctance to allow more of it in mainstream entertainment media. Maybe you disagree with their rational, but I think it makes a certain amount of sense.
And I repeat, there are (at least) two necessary for sex. Don't talk about prostitutes, ask them how many teenagers do they have as clients.
Considering the issue of statutory rape, I imagine they wouldn't be forthcoming about such things anyhow...
Most of kids don't have money for prostitutes,
Seems a little naive. Why couldn't they spend their money on prostitutes?
or don't have opportunity to meet them, but most of all don't have interest in them.
Depends on where you live, I suppose. Any city of a certain size has them. Why would a young person be averse to visiting a prostitute anyomore than their regular clientele?
Peers are more likely to be engaged in sexual activities, but for most of teenagers it is still almost SF.
SF?
If the teenager is a sportsman or otherwise popular he/she won't have problems (and it will happen with or without movies), the rest will get nothing. As for using drink to help getting a willing partner, if somebody allows him/herself to be in such position (drinking in situation that can lead to sex - e.g. parties, or alone with somebody in his/her home) it is practically the same as giving consent. But first you must be a desirable one to have somebody who will be ready to participate, including having a drink...
All that's necessary for sex to occur is two people who are willing. You're assuming that the default position is that people aren't interested in sex, so that people who are need to try to convince others to cooperate.
The only thing preventing younger people from having the same amount of sex that older people may have I would think is their relative freedom (still living with their parents, no independent income or transportation, etc). Then again mature adults may be hampered by other things like their schedule or other commitments. All things considered, immature folks are around a large peer group and have a relatively large amount of free time to experiment, curiosity and are in a period of unfamiliar territory with hormonal changes and so new found freedom (in the transition from high school to college age, for example).
And there is no need to wait, to seduce, to play tricks, to pour drinks etc if violence is on your mind. You, and probably friends with similar taste, can simply go out of your door and chose a victim. So your satisfaction comes within minutes, while those who are movie-stimulated for sex often have to wait for years.
So violence is "easier" than sex, so it's a stronger temptation? I disagree. A couple teenagers having sex doesn't regularly make the local news, but folks involved in a street fight or a domestic brawl often does.
A consensual fight has the perceived (obvious) liability of mutual harm (the caveat being perhaps one thinks they're "better" and so won't be hurt like their opponent), while consensual sex is generally perceived to be risk free (despite attempts to educate young people on pregnancy and infection).
It's true, teenagers don't HAVE to have sex, anymore than they have to commit violence. But they at least have a desire (via hormonal changes at the time for most of them) for sex, and that natural curiosity invited by entertainment which portrays it as a positive recreation would seem more enticing than a portrayal of violence that is usually portrayed as dangerous (even when portrayed as something justified).
Two teenagers willing to experiment with sex together because it looked like so much fun in the movies, would seem a lot less "risky" than somebody looking for a fight because they thought a "tough guy" in a show looked cool beating somebody up.
And I've seen at least a few studies that seem to indicate that a lot of people are influenced by porn in terms of their sex lives, especially young people, so you could go in that direction as well looking for answers.
Not to mention the risk that if you don't go too far and kill your victim, it is more likely that a father of a girl beats you, prosecutes or kills you for having sex with his daughter (though she willingly participated), than for breaking arm of his son (who he for sure didn't willingly participate).
That presumes of course that the participants think that's likely to happen. A lot of modern parents either don't know their kids are having sex (if they are), or seem to brush it off so long as they are using condoms.
Now I was still comparing sex vs. violence. It sounds like perhaps you were going off comparing consensual sex to rape. I'm not saying young adults/teens/whatever are going to try to commit rape from watching the (usually consensual) sex glorified in entertainment media. I'm saying they're more likely to experiment with the sex, because it's not seen as something socially unacceptable and dangerous, whilst physical violence usually is.
You might compare this to certain other activities that seem "harmless" by comparison. Like back in the 80's I remember there was a lot of talk about how they thought kids were likely to want to start smoking because it was portrayed as "cool" in entertainment media like movies and tv shows. Now the media is much more negative towards smoking (tobacco at least... smoking marijuana, though still illegal is usually portrayed as something harmless, played for laughs in entertainment).
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/
reply
share
przgzr
12 years ago
I'm glad to be in discussion with you again, because you are always willing to analyze others' arguments and ready to explain yours.
I'm not young anymore (for a long while...) and memories from my childhood and puberty may not be useful for comparing to modern generations. But it may be interesting, because there was no internet, no satellite TV, no cable TV... Most movies had been watched in theaters, and national TV (no private channels in sight for several decades back then!) had a censorship system that would never pass sex movies (at any time of day), and that cut sex from art movies (like e.g. Bergman, Fassbinder, Bertolucci). But violence was also not wide spread, except when it was politically opportune to show it.
And I grew up during years that brought us spaghetti-westerns and Dirty Harry on one, with Danish bed-stories and German Report comedies on the other side. Back then there were no age limits for movies, though in smaller cities certain restriction existed but very informal - kids were afraid that their parents may find out what were they watching. However, in bigger towns (and this is answer to one of your questions, I was born and live in a town that is not too far from 1 million inhabitants) this chance was so small that schoolkids were free to make their choices. And I know that my schoolmates used that freedom a lot (me, personally, had no chance because of my strict parents, it was not before University that I could go to cinema on my own). But, while some of us didn't have personal experiences with watching those movies, we could surely have information listening to comments of schoolmates who have seen them. And, except for occasional mentioning some funny scenes from Danish sex comedies, they seemed by far more impressed with action movies, with Eastwood, Marvin, Bronson, Borgnine and others who played what Segal, van Damme, Willis, Stallone and others did decades later.
But hormones are something that don't depend on internet or movies. We didn't need those movies or any other stimulation (and I really could find none of it during my childhood, in my family) to feel what hormones were doing to us. As for violence... as you can guess, being not allowed to go to cinema is just a one of symptoms of my life, including being younger than the rest of my class, I was very suitable for bullying, what was recognized by others as well. And the things that they did were often described as "let's do it like in... (name of the movie)". Don't misunderstand me, I'm not complaining (those were the years long before that anybody mentioned bullying, and I still think that most of victims are secondary overvictimized today when adults interfere, something nobody thought of when I was a child), just showing examples.
And today still I don't see that kids have changed so much. Only technical possibilities made it more frightening, more creepy. I have several kids, all adults, and when they were in early teens there was no internet. They never showed too much interest in sex movies, and once internet appeared sex sites weren't their priority (I don't know what kind of moron would I be to believe they never visited them, but I never surprised them to see any suspicious site on screen or in Taskbar, or traces in cache or... But one of their favorite surfing activities is looking for accidents, the more bloody the better, if possible with someone dying in front of camera. Tragic events in sport can be often seen on official media sites (videos on newspaper or TV sites), like deadly incident on the 1st day of Vancouver games, car race crashes (e.g. Indianapolis), or spectacular (though, luckily, not deadly) falls on ski jumping or Alpine ski. But this is usually not gruesomely and graphic enough, so they seek material on Youtube, and there can be found things like traffic accidents taped on monitoring (surveillance) systems, pedestrians crushed by trucks, crashes of trains and planes... and I would think that there was something terribly wrong with them (and me as a parent) if there were not dozens of their friends sending each other links and e-mails, and not rarely people that are even older than me sending each other (and me) similar stuff.
So it is not just violence per se as a problem, and we are not living in oversexed environment (as might be implied in some of your lines), we became a culture of death, thanatos. People don't find joy that you describe in sex scenes, but death scenes (with or without explicit violence).
Compared to that, I'd say that I prefer positive light shining of sex, that any light that illuminates those corps. Isn't sex more natural than this obsession of death? (And may I add that none of my children is or plans to be married in year/s to come?) Not only that, this generation isn't talking about sex as former generations did, it seems that anti-sexual propaganda activists did their job well, they don't want to be connected with sex at all. This reminds me on earlier centuries when sex was much bigger crime that murder, so even Christians would rather kill their wives or husbands hoping that God will forgive them, so that they can marry another person (assured that extramarital sex could, unlike murder, never be forgiven). And enjoying in death (for most of them passive, but some go further...) has replaced enjoying in sex. And I really believe that this is not the way I'd like our civilization to go. This is a ground for killing a 17 year old boy who was waiting for the bus by a group of boys his age or 1-2 years older, beating him till he died. And my town is considered to be rather peaceful and safe one. In one less peaceful town in another country another 17 year old boy was killed by a passing gang when he stepped on the street just to see where his dog went. And I don't see any risk in this acts, risk that you mention that those who chose violence have in mind that this is a risky behaving (because a victim can hurt a perpetrator as well - tell me what chances did these victims have?).
I don't see why do you object that "sex is seen as normal in our society". Is it not? Hasn't evolution been possible, didn't humans appear and still exist because of sex, or when God told Eve "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee", didn't he have sex in mind?
And if there is a problem with having (extramarital) sex at too young age, this is something that these new generations shouldn't be blamed for. Throughout our human history young people who started puberty (that used to start several years later than in last decades) were ready for marriage. As you admitted the importance of hormones, you must admit also that these kids didn't have many problems with their hormones, because once they appeared very quickly these boys and girls were allowed to completely legally and morally enjoy sex as their hormones told them to. But today, with onset of puberty earlier than ever, we don't allow our offspring to get married. First, there is an official age in most countries, and even after that parents (and whole society) suggest them to wait as long as possible - to gain diploma, to buy a house, a car, get good job (first few years usually these jobs are not good enough)... and most young people don't marry before twenty years pass after their puberty. What should they do about their hormones?
There is something that should have been most important in this situation - good education, proper information in time when they need it. And we, adults, old ones, should make a choice, either to allow them to marry as our ancestors did, or to change attitudes and moral standards that we, not teenagers, make impossible to maintain.
(I don't want to make a single comment about rape when I talk about sex. What has rape to do with sex, except for anatomy organs? It is as if you say that it's a matter of philosophy when someone breaks your scull, because the brain is involved.)
reply
share
kurgan-10
12 years ago
Let me summarize what I was trying to say before, just for the record, without debating what you've just said:
Do I think that sex portrayed in mainstream movies and TV shows is more likely to actually influence the behavior of impressionable young viewers than similar portrayals of violence?
YES.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share