[Discussion] *** and Violence

[Ninpou]

Which would you prefer: Your daughter coming home from school and saying she wants to be a soldier or Your daughter comming home from school and saying she wants to be a prostitute?

Children copy what they see and the violence in pg movies isnt as violent as ripping guts out, even so; children can associate violence with negative emotions whereas *** is assciated with positive emotions/ hormones and thats something they would want to copy if they saw it.

I dont disagree completely with what you said though.

 

[Shinobi Train]

Okay, so it's going back and forth. Some are saying that (basically) nudity should be covered because of maturity level. Others don't see a problem at all.

I'm not saying that I think nudity should just be everywhere and I'm ticked that it's not. I'm mostly trying to say that it's so odd that nudity and *** is shunned when violence is glorified. That's just strange; we could simply get rid of both and go back to a more modest time when niether was shown much at all, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

For one thing, if *** and nudity was exposed to kids from the very beginning and it was never treated as something special, then people wouldn't be so hyped about it and things like diseases would be rare. Also, people would have a better grasp of the consequences of their choices. Because violence isn't real isn't a reason to justify it. Violence is real actually, and does a lot more damage. *** is real and it brings new life instead of destroying it.

Just because teens are more likely to have *** rather than kill each other is a reason to show it to them and let them know it's not all that special instead of shunning it and sending them the message that it's perverted. By shunning ***, teens will either (a) avoid it completely even after they're married and now their love life is screwed up or (b) they'll want to do it more than anything and that's the first thing they go for...which spreads STDs and causes premature parenthood.

By exposing kids to *** all their lives, there's only one thing they'll grow up thinking: "meh, I couldn't care less". Not that they wouldn't care about having intercourse with their spouse at the right time, but they wouldn't be so excited to just jump at the first opportunity.

 

[Exaar]

Violence is an instict to survive. If a guy with knife goes after u then u surely wont try to kiss, undress and hump him as he will kill you before. Violence is needed for self defense as there will be always hate and misery in this pathetic world ...

Tell that to the Young kids that beat up old people, Get shot/stabb for something as pathetic as "Turf wars" between gangs.

Which would you prefer: Your daughter coming home from school and saying she wants to be a soldier or Your daughter comming home from school and saying she wants to be a prostitute?

Children copy what they see and the violence in pg movies isnt as violent as ripping guts out, even so; children can associate violence with negative emotions whereas *** is assciated with positive emotions/ hormones and thats something they would want to copy if they saw it.

I dont disagree completely with what you said though.

Thats the parents job to teach their damn children that what they see on Tv/Films isn't real and they shouldn't copy it.
Today's parents are so damn lazy that they put their kids infront of Tv to watch films with violence or *** in, or maybe both and they don't bother telling them not to copy it.

I've grown up Playing Violent games, watching violent films, Sexual films, Films to do with drugs and gang violence.
I hate violence, I don't do drugs and i don't go around fucking everything that moves.
Why?, because i know the difference between films and IRl, my parents taught me this from a very young age and didn't hide this stuff from me.

 

[Exaar]

Okay, so it's going back and forth. Some are saying that (basically) nudity should be covered because of maturity level. Others don't see a problem at all.

I'm not saying that I think nudity should just be everywhere and I'm ticked that it's not. I'm mostly trying to say that it's so odd that nudity and *** is shunned when violence is glorified. That's just strange; we could simply get rid of both and go back to a more modest time when niether was shown much at all, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

For one thing, if *** and nudity was exposed to kids from the very beginning and it was never treated as something special, then people wouldn't be so hyped about it and things like diseases would be rare. Also, people would have a better grasp of the consequences of their choices. Because violence isn't real isn't a reason to justify it. Violence is real actually, and does a lot more damage. *** is real and it brings new life instead of destroying it.

Just because teens are more likely to have *** rather than kill each other is a reason to show it to them and let them know it's not all that special instead of shunning it and sending them the message that it's perverted. By shunning ***, teens will either (a) avoid it completely even after they're married and now their love life is screwed up or (b) they'll want to do it more than anything and that's the first thing they go for...which spreads STDs and causes premature parenthood.

By exposing kids to *** all their lives, there's only one thing they'll grow up thinking: "meh, I couldn't care less". Not that they wouldn't care about having intercourse with their spouse at the right time, but they wouldn't be so excited to just jump at the first opportunity.

@ Bold, exactly.

*** is so hyped up people want to have it ASAP, so they can be "cool" and don't want to be the last "Virgin" in their groups.
they do not think about what will happen because they don't really know because they arn't educated enough.

Then people are shocked when children get preg.

Sry for double post, to lazy to edit xd.

 

[Ninpou]

Tell that to the Young kids that beat up old people, Get shot/stabb for something as pathetic as "Turf wars" between gangs.



Thats the parents job to teach their damn children that what they see on Tv/Films isn't real and they shouldn't copy it.
Today's parents are so damn lazy that they put their kids infront of Tv to watch films with violence or *** in, or maybe both and they don't bother telling them not to copy it.

I've grown up Playing Violent games, watching violent films, Sexual films, Films to do with drugs and gang violence.
I hate violence, I don't do drugs and i don't go around fucking everything that moves.
Why?, because i know the difference between films and IRl, my parents taught me this from a very young age and didn't hide this stuff from me.

Depends on what you quailify as violence, is boxing violence?
I grew up around real violence, real drugs and pathetic gangs and their turth wars and yet i dont do drugs or **** everything that moves like most people in my year.

If they see it they will probably think its ok to copy since it isnt bad so i think its best if you lock away that part of life and let them enjoy their childhood until they hit puberty.

 

[AP2k]

Whats the bush line? "theres no *** in your violence" totally irrelevent, but had to be posted

 

[ODDtobi]

Solid points.More *** More violence =D

 

[SSW Imp]

Good thread
But by not showing *** and educating could lead younger people to getting pregnant and having unprotected ***.

 

[Shinobi Train]

Whats the bush line? "theres no *** in your violence" totally irrelevent, but had to be posted

I'm curious, what are trying to say with that?

 

[Avani]

Okay, so what about *** and violence? What I want to know is why it's okay to show gore and mutilation on tv, but showing a woman's nipple is just too much. There has to be a real reason for this. Violence is a major problem in society, so why show so much of it all over the place? I haven't heard of *** being a problem unless it's rape, but half of the time I think rape happens because *** is shunned so much, especially with kids who grow up thinking *** is a problem for some reason.

A parent will take their little kid to see a PG-13 movie like Batman, Spiderman or even back in the day when the LotR movies came out. So violence is okay for a young child to see, but if it was a movie about *** then there's no way a parent would let them see it. I get that there needs to be something to entertain the audience, so why not swap out violence for ***, it's a lot safer since now the kids won't be thinking about killing people.

Also, on NB for example (not that I'm picking on NB, just an example), it's okay for people to have signatures and avatars ect. with girls exposing rather large portions of their breasts. It's okay as long as the nipple isn't shown, so basically a pasty will do. However, a man can be shown topless with nothing covering his nipples... did I miss something? would it be okay if someone photoshopped a man's nipples onto a woman's breasts and showed that? They'd be cover her real ones, so that should be okay, right? (I'm being sarcastic to drive my point home )

So what is it about this? Why all the wierdness? Oh, and also, it's okay to have a woman wearing panties, but if you take those off there's a problem. Newsflash, there's not that much to see, just like with nipples. I can almost understand not wanting to show a man's genitals because that's just...nasty, but there's nothing so intense about a naked woman, it's highly overrated actually.Ultimately, why is it that someone's guts being ripped from their body while they scream in agony okay, but a nudity isn't? A person's insides are a lot more gross and revolting than a person's outsides.

There are so many things wrong in this post that I am not sure where to begin with.

Starting with violence- It depends on a lot of factors at times- views of parents, age of the kid and maturity level when it comes to such decisions that what movies they allow them to watch and which ones they don't.

IMO Showing violence to younger kids is not really a positive thing. They should not be exposed to it if one can help it or as long as a parent can help it. Even as adults seeing too much of it on a regular basis simply lessens our sensitivity to such crimes after a while. In fact criminal minded come to enjoy it. There are multiple cases where crimes happen in RL inacting the scenes from movies or shows while the opposite examples are rare if any.

***- lol at the bolded parts.

In other words you want your parents to take you to watch P*rn. That's what those movies are called you know. And some of them have both the things you mentioned. :|


As for naked pic of a guy's private parts: Double standard much? How do you know some of the people of the both sexes may disagree with your right there. I am sure we will get enough people to use only that part in that ava and siggys if we allow it.

You cancelled all your argument yourself with that one line. Naked pictures, in essence , objectify the other *** to the max and are simply against human dignity.

About ava: Some nudity in work of art is allowed because there is a little thing called artistic lisence. We still have a line to draw somewhere and maintain some decorum. Hence the restriction after a limit.

 

[Never]

You mentioned Lotr, I'm with you whatever you say Lol...

You points are very good because they are very true.
(Well I think they are XD)

I laughed when you said showing a mans genitals is just nasty XD agreed ^^

(I Never took into account maturity levels...good point Tsuchi)

 

[Shinobi Train]

There are so many things wrong in this post that I am not sure where to begin with.

Starting with violence- It depends on a lot of factors at times- views of parents, age of the kid and maturity level when it comes to such decisions that what movies they allow them to watch and which oneds they don't.

IMO Showing violence to younger kids is not really a positive thing. They should not be exposed to it if one can help it or as long as a parent can help it. Even as adults seeing too much of it on a regular basis simply lessens our sensitivity to such crimes after a while. In fact criminal minded come to enjoy it. There are multiple cases where crimes happen in RL inacting the scenes from movies or shows while the opposite examples are rare if any.

***- lol at the bolded parts.

In other words you want your parents to take you to watch P*rn. That's what those movies are called you know. And some of them have both the things you mentioned. :|


As for naked pic of a guy's private parts: Double standard much? How do you know some of the people of the both sexes may disagree with your right there. I am sure we will get enough people to use only that part in that ava and siggys if we allow it.

Basically you cancelled all your argument yourself with that one line. Naked pictures basically objectify the other *** to the max and simply against human dignity.

About ava: Some nudity in work of art is allowed because there is a little thing called artistic lisence. We still have a line to draw somewhere and try to maintain some semblence of dignit. Hence the restriction after a limit.

A most excellent response, I applaud you. There is no denying though that many parents bring their children to movies that show excessive violence or intentionally allow their children to watch it. However, if a sexual scene emerges, they immediately fast forward that part. (I know, it's happened more times to me than I can count and to many people I'm acquainted with.)

I do detect a bit of bias with some of your other points. Male genitals are rather, extreme. The only part of a woman that is so blatant is the breasts themselves, every other part is rather bland, it's all internal. Males, however, have more to it. I don't want to get into it, but you know what I mean. A woman's nakedness is highly overated, there's hardly anything special about it. A man's nakedness shows exactly what can be done with a woman's.

I'm not saying that if a female is exposed that's okay and if a male is it isn't. What I am saying is that I could see why a man's genitals would be shunned more than a womans. In no way did I say that a double standard should be in place, I only said that I'd understand it. Personally, I couldn't care less if a naked man is running about, I have no interest. I believe you may have misunderstood my statement. I'm just saying there's more "stuff" on a man than there is a woman; that's a fact.

I'm also an advocate for eliminating all nudity and violence; but at the same time I can't help but wonder if more education in sexuality would benefit people.

I don't care about what people show in their avatars and signatures, though I do find it a bit childish when males have half naked women in them. It's the women who should have naked females in theirs and men should have half naked males in theirs (if it's going to happen at all that is). I do not understand why a woman should be so opposed to their own bodies, and why men are so attracted to females that they'd actually have them as avas and sigs. More education should fix this I think.

If I haven't explained myself well enough, do tell me.

Oh, I forgot, you should know that I'm old enough to buy my own p@rn, I don't need my parents to take me. :rofl: Not that I'd ever want them to, though sexual education is a plus.

 

[Avani]

A most excellent response, I applaud you. There is no denying though that many parents bring their children to movies that show excessive violence or intentionally allow their children to watch it. However, if a sexual scene emerges, they immediately fast forward that part. (I know, it's happened more times to me than I can count and to many people I'm acquainted with.)

I do detect a bit of bias with some of your other points. Male genitals are rather, extreme. The only part of a woman that is so blatant is the breasts themselves, every other part is rather bland, it's all internal. Males, however, have more to it. I don't want to get into it, but you know what I mean. A woman's nakedness is highly overated, there's hardly anything special about it. A man's nakedness shows exactly what can be done with a woman's.

I'm not saying that if a female is exposed that's okay and if a male is it isn't. What I am saying is that I could see why a man's genitals would be shunned more than a womans. In no way did I say that a double standard should be in place, I only said that I'd understand it. Personally, I couldn't care less if a naked man is running about, I have no interest. I believe you may have misunderstood my statement. I'm just saying there's more "stuff" on a man than there is a woman; that's a fact.

I'm also an advocate for eliminating all nudity and violence; but at the same time I can't help but wonder if more education in sexuality would benefit people.

I don't care about what people show in their avatars and signatures, though I do find it a bit childish when males have half naked women in them. It's the women who should have naked females in theirs and men should have half naked males in theirs (if it's going to happen at all that is). I do not understand why a woman should be so opposed to their own bodies, and why men are so attracted to females that they'd actually have them as avas and sigs. More education should fix this I think.

If I haven't explained myself well enough, do tell me.

You are missing the point entirely.

I repeat: Naked pictures, in essence , objectify the other *** to the max and are simply against human dignity. Some nudity in work of art is allowed because there is a little thing called artistic lisence. We still have a line to draw somewhere and maintain some decorum. Hence the restriction after a limit.

If we are to follow your definition and sensibilities we would end up making rules like:

1: you can show male nipples but not female ones.
2: You can show the females without undergarments but not males.

What if the female parts are exposed in the images? How graphic you want the rules to be? And even then some will disagree with what is objectionable and what is not.

Personally I found such rules and descriptions utterly ridiculous. That's why I support the rules the way they are.

I wonder if you have any idea how imaginative and graphic people can be. I once removed a signature which had nothing but a tree made of female breasts. Some other I am not even going to tell here. I might have to infract myself for adult content. :|

The parents who fast forward uncomfortable scenes- are trying to do just that at the moment- attempting to maintain some decorum and avoiding exposer to the basic but animalistic behaviour to that extent. They are hinting you that there are some things which are essentially more private than sharing it with whole family and friends all the time.

It is not like seeing those scenes with parents will make you more edcuated unless they start explaining things to you along with it's consequences. The movie will become a documetry about seuxal behaviour.

But again that depends on family to family and it is up to them. There is process called growth and learning social behaviour along with it. Parents usually follow the rules of the scociety around then and teach kids the same with their actions verbal or non verbal so that they can fit in.

PS: Saw your edit but it changes nothing. You were mentioning parents taking kids to violent movies and advocating that it should be replaced with ***. :sy: So my points still stand. As for education from such movies- that's the major pit. People think they are getting educated but most only get unrealistic ideas from it and many of them end up screwing up real relationships because of it.

About men being opposed to their own body? lol again - same can be said to you. Why are you against your own? Why do we get more reports if someone posts images of naked male as against a naked female. SMH

 

[Shinobi Train]

You are missing the point entirely.

I repeat: Naked pictures, in essence , objectify the other *** to the max and are simply against human dignity. Some nudity in work of art is allowed because there is a little thing called artistic lisence. We still have a line to draw somewhere and maintain some decorum. Hence the restriction after a limit.

If we are to follow your definition and sensibilities we would end up making rules like:

1: you can show male nipples but not female ones.
2: You can show the females without undergarments but not males.

What if the female parts are exposed in the images? How graphic you want the rules to be? And even then some will disagree with what is objectionable and what is not.

Personally I found such rules and descriptions utterly ridiculous. That's why I support the rules the way they are.

I wonder if you have any idea how imaginative and graphic people can be.
I once removed s signature which had nothing but a tree made of female breasts.

The parents who fast forward uncomfortable scenes- are trying to do just that at the moment- attempting to maintain some decorum and avoiding exposer to the basic but animalistic behaviour to that extent. They are hinting you that there are some things which are essentially more private than sharing it with whole family and friends all the time.

Is is not like seeing those scenes with parents will make you more edcuated unless they start explaing thing to you along with it's consequences. The movie will become a documetry about seuxal behaviour.

But again that depends on family to family and it is up to them. There is process called growth and learning social behaviour along with it. Parents usually follow the rules of the scociety around then and teach kids the same with their actions verbal or non verbal so that they can fit in.

Okay, U_U I don't know how to say this properly, my words thus far are obviously missing something. I'm saying that female and male nipples are hardly different. In fact, believe it or not, some men have actually been able to produce milk in order to sustain a child. There's very little difference. I'm wondering why female nipples are shunned while male nipples aren't.

I respect you to a very high degree; I'm not trying to argue here, just explain my stance, which isn't getting through I guess. I'm not wanting to change NB rules, I only used the base as an example. Please understand this. U_U I'm not one for double standards...

I'm really trying my best to come up with the right words, so I beg that you forgive me here. In no way am I trying to objectify women; I realize this is common among men so I'm fighting against the foolishness of my gender. I'm 100% unbiased. Okay, that's been laid down; we now know that I'm not biased in any way, shape or form. My sensei taught me better than that. xd

I do not see how genitalia objectifies a gender if both are shown equally side by side. People say that p@rn is offensive because it takes advantage of women, but men are shown as much or more as females are. So how is something like that more offensive to women if half the time one is staring at male genitals?

Lets take this one step at a time so that each thing is discussed properly. I have trouble with multiple topics at once so I'll address them individually. xd

 

[Avani]

Okay, U_U I don't know how to say this properly, my words thus far are obviously missing something. I'm saying that female and male nipples are hardly different. In fact, believe it or not, some men have actually been able to produce milk in order to sustain a child. There's very little difference. I'm wondering why female nipples are shunned while male nipples aren't.

I respect you to a very high degree; I'm not trying to argue here, just explain my stance, which isn't getting through I guess. I'm not wanting to change NB rules, I only used the base as an example. Please understand this. U_U I'm not one for double standards...

I'm really trying my best to come up with the right words, so I beg that you forgive me here. In no way am I trying to objectify women; I realize this is common among men so I'm fighting against the foolishness of my gender. I'm 100% unbiased. Okay, that's been laid down; we now know that I'm not biased in any way, shape or form. My sensei taught me better than that. xd

I do not see how genitalia objectifies a gender if both are shown equally side by side. People say that p@rn is offensive because it takes advantage of women, but men are shown as much or more as females are. So how is something like that more offensive to women if half the time one is staring at male genitals?

Lets take this one step at a time so that each thing is discussed properly. I have trouble with multiple topics at once so I'll address them individually. xd

I know you were not asking the rules to be changed. But you were questioning the reasoning behind it and that's what I explained.

As for why men's nipple are Ok while female ones are not: Mental conditioning of the society for last two thousand years at least. In many countries they didn't mind it and members of both sexes went topless.:shrug:

How many of you are comfortable with breast feeding in public? Are you comfortable if your topless sister is sitting together with your four other friends chatting away? would you join them?

And as for P@rn being offensive to women- Essentially this industry is there to service male "fantacies". How women or relationships end up hurting because of it- it is an adult topic. Not something which lies within parameter of NB discussions.

 

[Shinobi Train]

I know you were not asking the rules to be changed. But you were questioning the reasoning behind it and that's what I explained.

As for why men's nipple are Ok while female ones are not: Mental conditioning of the society for last two thousand years at least. In many countries they didn't mind it and members of both sexes went topless.:shrug:

How many of you are comfortable with breast feeding in public? Are you comfortable if your topless sister is sitting together with your four other friends chatting away? would you join them?

And as for P@rn being offensive to women- Essentially this industry is there to service male "fantacies". How women or relationships end up hurting because of it- it is an adult topic. Not something which lies within parameter of NB discussions.

Actually, I think this whole subject is in the grounds of what my teacher would call "truth".

Listen up, everybody, because this is something you don't hear every day. Truth is subjective. Something one believes to be true is based solely on something one has been taught (usually from childhood). Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it so. If you're taught something, then that means your perception is based on that.

If we're taught that *** is "evil" or "obscene" in some way, then that is what we'll believe. If we're taught that a person's nakedness is obscene, then we'll always believe it is. If we're taught that drugs or alcohol is bad, then even if we use it, we still think it to be so.

This is what this discussion boils down to: if you're taught something as a child, then you will never depart from it. If we merely re-evaluated the situation without bias, then maybe, just maybe, we could arrive at a conclusion that would be more beneficial.

 

[Escorpiius]

Newsflash, there's not that much to see, just like with nipples. I can almost understand not wanting to show a man's genitals because that's just...nasty, but there's nothing so intense about a naked woman, it's highly overrated actually.

The only part of a woman that is so blatant is the breasts themselves, every other part is rather bland, it's all internal.

Allow to :rofl: for the 2 above quotes. I'm fasting btw - you could have chosen a debate less "explicit"

I'm wondering why female nipples are shunned while male nipples aren't.

Well, this world has always been male-centered one. And scientifically speaking, a man gets aroused faster by seeing a women's breasts than vice-versa. So, I guess, that's one reason. And I'm not giving more cause NB is a family forum and Tsuchi already gave some nice explanation.

And back to your overall topic, let me start it with a statistic:

"According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, by the time an average child leaves high school, he or she will have watched the happening of 18,000 murders on television."

Outraged? Surprised? Intrigued? Well, I'm not. It's true that violence has been way too allowed while that hasn't been such a case for ***. Still, that isn't a reason why we should be more liberal about *** on TV and other media.

Due to anatomical changes (Puberty) that occurs at a certain age, children are bound to grow curious on *** over certain age. Still, that's something that's bound to occur due to hormonal changes. Yet, *** and porn clearly depicts the raunchiness in sexual acts and isn't good educative material. It's censorship is completely justified.

On the other hand, there's no hormonal change onto violence. It's not "like come at the age 12, you'll start growing violent tendencies." Violence doesn't shock as much ***! ***, as it's presented on TV/porn, is a direct ticket to mind perversion/corruption but we can't exclaim that violence corrupts the mind as much.

You may start putting more limitations onto violence on TV but violence is something that a children is gonna experience in some way at a very tender age. My point is the way *** has been "censored" from general public is completely justified. The lousiness in violence censorship is indeed outrageous. Still, that doesn't mean we should swap for them. It's gonna cause even more societal anarchism.

 

[Shinobi Train]

Allow to :rofl: for the 2 above quotes. I'm fasting btw - you could have chosen a debate less "explicit"



Well, this world has always been male-centered one. And scientifically speaking, a man gets aroused faster by seeing a women's breasts than vice-versa. So, I guess, that's one reason. And I'm not giving more cause NB is a family forum and Tsuchi already gave some nice explanation.

And back to your overall topic, let me start it with a statistic:

"According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, by the time an average child leaves high school, he or she will have watched the happening of 18,000 murders on television."

Outraged? Surprised? Intrigued? Well, I'm not. It's true that violence has been way too allowed while that hasn't been such a case for ***. Still, that isn't a reason why we should be more liberal about *** on TV and other media.

Due to anatomical changes (Puberty) that occurs at a certain age, children are bound to grow curious on *** over certain age. Still, that's something that's bound to occur due to hormonal changes. Yet, *** and porn clearly depicts the raunchiness in sexual acts and isn't good educative material. It's censorship is completely justified.

On the other hand, there's no hormonal change onto violence. It's not "like come at the age 12, you'll start growing violent tendencies." Violence doesn't shock as much ***! ***, as it's presented on TV/porn, is a direct ticket to mind perversion/corruption but we can't exclaim that violence corrupts the mind as much.

You may start putting more limitations onto violence on TV but violence is something that a children is gonna experience in some way at a very tender age. My point is the way *** has been "censored" from general public is completely justified. The lousiness in violence censorship is indeed outrageous. Still, that doesn't mean we should swap for them. It's gonna cause even more societal anarchism.

I agree, swapping violence for *** is outragious indeed. Neither should be shown in my opinion, I'm just wondering why violence (which is obiously more damaging than ***) is acceptable over the other. I still do think that proper sexual education is beneficial.

 

[Sophie Ezra]

you make some very good points and so did Tsuchi in her posts

I don't really know what to say but I will say this tho society today is messed up when it comes to Violence and *** and what chidren should & should not know or watch

 

[Shinobi Train]

you make some very good points and so did Tsuchi in her posts

I don't really know what to say but I will say this tho society today is messed up when it comes to Violence and *** etc

Agreed. I was expecting more of a wallie from you, but this will do. xd Sorry, I didn't mean for that to rhyme. xd